Misdee

I'd recommend contacting Lakland directly to ask for advice on adjusting the preamp gain. They are usually very helpful.

Bloody hell! Just looked online and a new 44-02 is just shy of £1800 nowadays! 😦 Last time I noticed they were about a grand, eleven hundred quid at the most. That said, if I think about it I must have had mine ten years this month. It's not surprising the prices have gone up, I suppose. Keep an eye out for a used one maybe, if you have the time to be patient.

I've got a fretless Lakland Skyline 44-02 and it's a wonderful option if you want a versatile fretless bass. It can do the classic Stingray tone if you use the rear pickup in humbucker mode, no problem. That pickup was designed to recreate something of the vintage Stingray tone. In addition, the 44-02 can also do the Jazz Bass thing if you split the rear coils, plus a few tones of it's own besides. If you're only going to own one fretless bass the Lakland makes a lot of sense because it does so many of the fretless tones we all love. The Lakland neck profile is identical to my old pre-EB Stingray, and the body shape is also Stingray-derived. It's an obvious choice if you're looking for for a surrogate Stingray. Thoroughly recommend.

I've also got a Reflex . That is a monster truck of a bass. Must be pretty rare nowadays, too.

My pre-EB Stingray was an 82/3 with a four bolt neck. It was a lovely bass in mint condition but at the time I owned it in the late '80's/early '90's the EBMM Stingrays I played in shops were overall better made with a a higher level of fit and finish. I distinctly remember thinking that at the time. I would have cheerfully done a direct swap.

In all the excitement I hadn't noticed the three-bolt micro-tilt neck. That's a big minus for me. I like a neck that's securely bolted in the correct position and stays there. I don't necessarily want adjustability. The old Stingrays definitely sounded a bit different, but I like the sound of the new ones just as much. One thing I preferred about the old ones (and the Classic reissues) was the laqured neck, figured or otherwise. But the roasted maple on the Stingray Special is pretty nice, it must be said. I suppose these new reissues are another option and you pay your money and takes your choice. I think these basses will be sought after, no doubt about that. They look and sound great, but the old Stingrays weren't perfect in certain respects, so neither will an accurate reproduction.

The world is crazy in 2023.🙁 I used to have an pre-EB Stingray in Sunburst/maple back in the day. It was a nice bass but nothing to get emotional about, if you see what I mean. I couldn't see any advantage it offered over an EBMM Stingray, then or now. Except the old-style bridge with the mutes on. Never used the mutes but it looks right on a Stingray. Maybe EBMM have missed a trick not reissuing an early EBMM-era bass. They were superb, I seem to remember. I might consider one of these basses if I could find a light one, 9 pounds or less, but I doubt I will find one. Besides which, I probably prefer the sound and feel of the Stingray Special if I am being honest.

When should bands call it a day? . From an artistic point of view usually good few years before they actually do. The old showbiz adage that a performer should always leave their audience wanting more so quit while you're ahead is particularly apposite in relation to pop music. Many legendary artist's have a cannon of work that benefitted from coming to a premature end. A great many more have inflicted inestimable tedium on the world with their continued existence. Led Zeppelin, for example, have benefited greatly from their untimely demise, becoming a mythical entity, as opposed to a mere musical act. Contrast that to The Who, still mere mortals, turning out spectacularly forgettable new music and playing it live for only god knows who and god's knows why. You could say the same for Queen. The trick is for musicians to realise that moment when the only way to further their career is to apparently end it. I will readily admit it's a lot easier said than done and it must take a lot of courage. Also, a lot of blame has to be put upon members of the public who encourage these so called "legacy acts" by buying tickets etc. A Take That reunion tour is not a victimless crime, as anyone who has seen Gary Barlow in a fishnet sleeveless t-shirt will attest to.

I would have to rate Elton's band up to 1976 as one of the very best backing groups of the 1970s. Off the top of my head I can only think of David Bowie's band post -1976 (George Murray, Carlos Alomar et al) that can rival them.

Dee Murray has long been one of my favourite players and an inspiration. I always get the feeling he was one of those players who was naturally gifted. I don't think he had to practice the bass much, he just had an innate musicality that made it easy for him. He always knew how to make his playing interesting without ever getting in the way. A lot like Paul McCartney in that respect.

On a good day I think I'm a decent bass player considering that I'm an amateur enthusiast. I could definitely have been a professional if I had wanted to be, bearing in mind that to be a professional you don't need to be great, you just need to get paid. My goal from when I got my first bass when I was twelve years old was always to be a good player. I wasn't even that bothered about being in a band. Forty-odd years later I still feel the same way and I'm still tormented by the need to improve even though I am only playing at home for my own amusement nowadays. I've seen and heard some superb bass playing from Basschatters over the years, for sure. Occasionally I have also seen some very average to poor playing too, sometimes from members who have stressed and obsessed about the finer details a equipment choices. That in itself has been a valuable lesson. It's much easier to improve your equipment than your playing. Good luck to all of them anyway. What's for sure is that if I don't have something nice to say then I say nothing at all. It's worth mentioning that I've endured an awful lot (much too much) virtuosic bass playing by pro players that was incredibly dreary and self-indulgent. I would much rather listen to amateur players who play with conviction at whatever level than have endure competent twaddle, so I definitely wouldn't necessarily equate how technically proficient a bass player is with how enjoyable the music is.

That's a rather beautiful bass that will serve you well in any musical style you can imagine. I hope you get a lot of pleasure from it. The quality of these Japanese Yamaha basses is pretty extraordinary, especially considering the very reasonable price of this particular model. You can spend twice as much on a boutique bass and not get as good an instrument. I speak from experience.

Absolutely right. The market dictates the price. The individual decides on their priorities and whether they are willing and/or able to pay it.

I nearly mentioned classic cars. That's a good analogy. Watches are also a suitably absurdist equivalent. Whatever watch you get, half past three is half past three. I completely understand why people gravitate to vintage Fenders.The idea that there is a divide between the actuality of what old and new Fender basses do is largely imaginary, that is my point. That, however, is with the huge caveat that the imagination is not a trivial thing. Its the most important thing.

And then I see something like this and change my mind.

I have no problem with people buying basses and selling them on at a profit. Good luck to them. No one is forcing anyone to buy them. You pay your money and you take your choice. To me the overarching question is,how much do you believe in vintage Fenders? Is the tangible difference between the old ones and newer examples really so significant that it makes sense to pay a huge premium for it? Or are folks who buy old Fenders nowadays paying for the intangible? And is the intangible worth paying for? I love old Fender basses. I've owned lots of them, all late '60s to mid-70s. Never had a pre-CBS, but played a lot of them over the years. I've currently got three post-2009 USA-made Fender basses that I bought brand new that are hands-down better instruments than any old ones I have had. They sound better, play better and are more reliable. Those are my priorities. Other people may have different ones when choosing a bass. Old Fenders are beautiful objects with a romance all of their own, if you've got one and enjoy it then that is a wonderful thing. But I would be very interested to put this 57 P Bass at 21.5 K up against a Mexican-made Fender Roadworn 57 P Bass, both for sound and playability. Would owning an old Fender bass that cost in excess of twenty grand really be much fun? However old and rare it is, when you sit down with it at home what you have essentially got is a P Bass. Not that different from any other P Bass. To me it would just be a burden. Others may feel very differently though, and I can understand that too.

Depending on the auction price and condition, this bass could be a bargain or a big mistake. Bear in mind that an auction house in Scarborough will have zero knowledge of the finer points of Zen and the art of bass guitar maintenance. Major structural repairs to the bass have the potential double whammy of being expensive and devaluing the bass at the same time. Buying a vintage bass that you have played that has potential but needs a bit of work is one thing. Buying a salvageable wreck in the hope that you will enjoy it when it's been renovated is another thing entirely. I would want to get my hands on the bass before I comitted myself. Even then, you wouldn't be able to assess the state of the pickup and electrics without a proper amplified play on the bass. Potentially a good find, though. I can understand the temptation to take a gamble.

I remember watching that Lyceum OGWT show the night it was first broadcast. It was timed to coincide with the release of the Duke album. A new Genesis LP was a big deal in those days. To me that live sound mix sounds just fine. Any congestion is probably symptomatic of Genesis trying to cram their live show into a relatively modest venue like the Lyceum. The band seem energised and the playing is top notch, as you would expect from musicians of that calibre. I am a casual Genesis fan, but I think Duke is a superb piece of work. The songs are really innovative and unusual but within an accessible mainstream rock/pop format. No mean feat. Turn It On Again is a masterpiece as far as I am concerned. One of my all-time favourite tracks.

Another part of that equation is the changing role played by the record company in financially support tours back in the day and compared to now. I would like to point out that I have no problem with people making money from high ticket prices for music events. I'm a firm believer in the Free Market economy. People can charge whatever they want and I can refuse to pay it. On reflection,very few bands I have been to see play in the last must be fifty years now (!) have been worth more than £10 in today's money. The vast majority weren't worth a fiver. And that's to watch them play. To watch them talk (like Geddy Lee is gonna) I would expect them to pay me. Nowadays I'd much rather go see a fledgling unsigned band or even some kids playing at a youth club than the vast majority of established acts. And as for the stadium rock concerts by big name bands that people pay lots of money too see, I wouldn't open my curtains to watch any of them even if they were playing in my garden.

You are quite right. But lots of bands did make money playing live back in the old days, just like they do now. The other thing that has changed is that an industry has grown up around live concerts that mostly didn't exist 40 years ago. The ticket prices fund that superfluous industry.

I went to see Rush in concert on the Permanent Waves tour in 1980. The ticket cost £4. That's about £16.50 in today's money. Bands and music business types will tell you that the economics of touring have changed. I would tell you that a few trucks, a P.A , some lights and a load of fellas with long hair are not that different in 2023 to what they were back in the olden days, nor are the practicalities of touring.

Bongos are truly wonderful instruments, my favourite "hifi" bass for a long time now. I prefer it to a lot of basses three times the price. Super powerful tone that cuts through any mix and never sounds weak or gutless like so many hi tech bass do. And yes, the two band midrange on the preamp is very useful, but boost it very sparingly to avoid overloading your input stage.

Geddy Lee is an iconic bass player but £66 to go listen to him promote his book? Most of what he's got to say will end up on YouTube anyway, no doubt. The amount people are expected to pay to see live events and buy merchandising has gone increasingly crazy over the past few decades, and the public are partly to blame for being daft enough to enable the escalation in prices. There is no writer or celebrity from history or alive today that I would pay £66 for the privellige of dragging myself out of the house to listen to them selling their latest product.

Sally Nugent and a gherkin. I'm living the dream.