Misdee

Is your bass also a five string, may I ask?

I actually put that to Ned Steinberger himself, and he said that for all kinds of reasons he will never be involved in reissuing that bass, and most likely no one else would either. It's a shame because if someone were to make a proper reissue of the original L2 then they could have my money, for sure. I'd be very interested to know how you thought the Streamline (and S2) compare to the Steinberger.

I've got a Status Streamline bass, pretty much as a substitute a Steinberger L2. It doesn't really sound that similar, but it's a beautiful design in its own right and it's the closest I'm going to get to the heart's desire of my younger days. I find the Streamline to have a warmer tone that's a bit less strident in the midrange than the inherent Steinberger L2 sound, while retaining a similar graphite-derived clarity. It would've been interesting if the Streamline had been on the market back in the 1980's heyday of the Steinberger. Rob Green would probably have been fighting off customers with the proverbial unsanitary stick.

No , like other players using Fenders, like Ben Shepherd. Come to think of it, the first time I saw Jeff Ament he was playing a fretless Precision, if I remember correctly.

I'm sure that's also a factor. But it was harder to find old Fenders in the U.K, and dealing directly with oversees builders was also much more difficult. Transatlantic phone calls in those days cost more a minute than a lap dance does nowadays. Bass players were limited to what retailers wanted to stock. The internet changed everything. When I first went to the USA in the mid-'80's it was a revelation. The guitar shops were chockablock with Fender basses of every vintage. I'd been on the lookout for ages for a nice ',70's Jazz Bass in the U.K. In America I had literally a dozen to choose from locally.They weren't particularly cheap, but they were certainly plentiful. The biggest problem was how to get one back to the U.K.

Him, and also various young men from Seattle in need of a good wash.

I remember a time when the relevant question would have been are Fender-style basses dead? When it comes to trends in bass design, it's a classic example of that old adage about swings and roundabouts. There was a general consensus that Fenders had become outmoded by such "useful" innovations as active electronics, graphite necks and neck-thru-body construction. I know it's hard to believe nowadays, but it's true. In the mid to late 1980's if you went shopping for a nice new bass (and by nice I mean pretty expensive) in the UK then the shops had plenty of boutique basses but a scant selection of Fender-derived designs. You could go into mainstream retail shops and buy a Wal, Status, a proper German-made Warwick, Jaydee, Overwater Music Man ect but the plethora of fancy Precision and Jazz-style basses that proliferate now just weren't there. The basses Fender were making weren't very appealing to most discerning players, and it was harder to find vintage examples than it is now, for various reasons. At some point in the 1990's someone must have plugged a Fender bass into an amp ( probably an Ampeg), tried playing some songs with a band, and said "Hang on a minute, this actually sounds quite good!" and we've all ended up where we are now.

The Steinberger L2 will always be the bass I wanted most but never got. It's a beautiful object. Some people used to complain the sound lacked the warmth of wood. It was supposed to! These basses had a tone all of their own and it's unique. I love it. I too remember when these basses first came out. In 1982 the UK retail was £999, and Soundwave in Essex were the sole importer. That's about £3500 in today's money. At that time I was lucky if I could muster £9.99, so it was just a dream in those days, but I passed on buying one in the late '80's and the early '90's when I easily could have, and then before you know it thirty years has passed, Steinberger are long gone and it's all ancient history. Regrets? I've had a few.

Jaydee basses might be shaped similarly to Alembics but in terms of sound they are very different. I seem to remember reading a long time ago that Jaydee pickups are essentially P Bass style split humbuckers in a rectangular case. The Jaydee preamp with bass, mid and treble cut and boost is a million miles away from the Alembic filter system. That said, I remember back in the mid 1980's when Jaydee basses first arrived in the USA that Rick Turner, chief designer of the original Alembic basses and as such eminently qualified to make a judgement, reviewed a Jaydee Supernatural bass in Guitar Player Magazine. He commented on the similarities between Alembic basses and the Jaydee especially in terms of the distinct "pop" of overtones you got on both basses because of their extended frequency range. So maybe they are a bit similar in certain respects.

It depends on what constitutes a "boutique" bass. If you mean exotic woods, active electronics, brass bridges made in small numbers by "craftsmen" then...yes but no not really. Looking back now with the balance of hindsight at the days when such basses were considered the pinnacle of acquisition for most self-respecting bassists, a lot of what was considered desirable, and indeed essential, seems pretty preposterous nowadays. Conversely,however, the idea nowadays that I need a very old (probably knackered) Fender P Bass strung with heavy gauge La Bella flats and a vintage Ampeg B15 that breaks down regularly in order to be a hip and savvy bass player is equally preposterous. And the same kind of fashion victims that adhered to boutique basses in the 1980's/90's are extolling the primacy of vintage gear now. If you like boutique basses buy one. If you like vintage ones get one of them. The notes are in the same place on either.

At the risk of stating the obvious, Parliament's definition is political, the Courts definition is legal and guided by Parliament. That makes them partisan, not definitive. Just because they have power and are in control, it doesn't necessarily make them right.

Who could "officially" define what racism is? With what authority? That definition will always be a matter for conjecture. May I also point out, the Oxford English Dictionary is a reference for the English language, not a definitive handbook for reality.

Your definition i.e the one you are presenting as being the "real" definition. My definition is defined in context of the post, and clearly so. This is an argument about nothing. Except that some people are desperate to accuse other people of racism, either explicitly or implicitly, and that's a very serious allegation to make .

What makes you think your definition is definitive? My definition was in relation to the post I was referring to, nothing else.

Okay, thanks for putting me straight. I'll submit to your jurisdiction in future, then.

So what?

This is exactly the kind of self-righteous indignation I'm talking about. So now the benchmark of racism is non-adherence to the doctrine of the Guardian newspaper.. It's not within your gift to decide on my behalf what is and what isn't racist. I'll make my own mind up, thank you very much. I'm perfectly capable of doing so. And if I did enjoy the company of people who didn't fulfil your expectations of what's acceptable, it really wouldnt be any of your business. Moreover, you do me a great disservice in implying that by associating with people who have whatever opinions that I would be endorsing those views or be susceptible to them.

I've got a Stingray Special four string and it's by far the best Stingray I've had the good fortune to have known. The Specials have their own flavour of Stingray tone and I really like it. The new neodymium pickups and redesigned preamp are incredibly punchy. The whole package is well thought-out and ergonomic. Nicely built, too. Enjoy your new bass.👍🙂

Yes they did.

You are, apparently, unable to differentiate between irony,satire and sarcasm. You need to go back and read the thread. Other posters referenced shouting at asylum hotels ect. as a benchmark of the unacceptable.That's why I mentioned it. FWIW, I'm not having a go at you. I don't know why you would think I was. I think you are posing a very interesting question. I'm trying to give you a nuanced answer, i.e it's not someone's opinions so much as how stupid or smart, charmless or charming the person expressing them is whether I could play in a band with them. So if it was Morrissey I could put up with a lot. If it was Jim Davidson, less so.

You can post whatever you like. Others can respond. Have a lot of people out there had a problem with band mates joining the throng outside asylum hotels with the aim of intimidating the residents? Has anyone, and what if they did? But at least now we know we have a prescribed position on this matter.

The point is that certain issues have a profile in certain people's imagination that is disproportionate to their actual incidence.

Is musicians shouting abuse at asylum hotels a thing nowadays? Is it a problem many of you are actually encountering? I expect not. But at least now we know that you're against that kind of thing. Were I a recently-arrived Albanian or Afghan youth anxious to be granted Leave To Remain just knowing that the amateur bass players of Britain were,by and large, on my side would,no doubt, be a source of great comfort. Maybe someone on Basschat could come up with a funky little ditty, preferably without any slapping in it though,(too aggressive, might trigger PTSD ect) we could somehow send to these poor souls. They could listen to it to drown out the sound of the lynch mob outside.

There's a certain conceit in those who want to decide on everyone's behalf what is acceptable and what isn't. (Guardian readers take note). I'd find it hard to spend a lot of time playing music with people who weren't able to tolerate my intolerance. What I find more disturbing than anyone's supposedly extreme views is the assumption by many people that benevolence and being "open-minded" is synonymous with permissiveness, letting people say, do and act as they want uncontested. Extremism and "bigotry" is then defined as anyone who doesn't concur with certain groups of people in society's idea of themselves, or anything that challenges and questions those ideas.

I don't think it's someone's views so much as how well they are able to express those views and explain them. I wouldn't dismiss someone for having opinions and a view of the world radically different to my own if they had a persuasive or coherent explanation of why they were that way. It just depends what they have to say and how convincingly they say it. That's what you'll be stuck in a transit van with. The bigger question is who gets to arbitrate which views are extreme? We live in a world full of extremities, and all too often the most powerful get to define their opponents as extremists as a way of undermining the truth. Besides which, are extreme views necessarily wrong? Your liberal views on certain subjects are considered extreme by a lot of people. It's all about context. Beyond all of that though, the older I get the more reluctant I am to condemn people for what they believe. I've come to realise that we all believe all sorts of crap at one time or another, mainly as a way of getting through life's difficulties. People who believe in the most unpalatable ideas are often the most vulnerable or most damaged in one way or another. If you like and/,or respect someone, you can easily be in a band with them even if you have differing views on things. If you don't like or tespect them, it doesn't really matter if they agree with you on everything