Misdee

We all have a choice to make when it comes to ticket prices. I'm not complaining about high prices, I'm just not going. For three hundred dollars never mind a Rush concert, I would be expecting two nights bed and breakfast at Geddy Lee's house in Toronto, and it better be a decent breakfast. In 1980 it cost me £4.50 for a ticket to see Rush. I would value a ticket to a Rush concert nowadays at about £30 in today's money, that's about a third more than what £4.50 from 1980 would be worth in 2025!allowing for inflation. I acknowledge the fact that they are allowed to put the prices up a bit allowing for their now legendary status. Anything over that and I don't want to know. I've seen enough big time bands to be sure that none of them are worth these kind of admission fees. If Rush want to charge £300 or whatever that is their right, it's fine with me but I certainly wouldn't contemplate paying it. Others can make their own decision but I've never seen a gig that I would've paid anything remotely like that money and feel it was well spent. It's just absurd to me that an ordinary ticket to a gig can be three figures.

So let me get this straight, this is a short scale Ric that is essentially just as big as an ordinary Rick, just the string length is shorter? For £3300? For me, a big part of the attraction of a short scale bass is the overall reduction in size of the instrument, and I would expect most other bass players feel the same. A scaled down 4001/3 would have been much better and would have been more saleable. I strongly suspect that the economics of manufacturing have been decisive in the conception of this bass, i.e it works out more profitable to make them this way because a scaled-down bass would require a whole new build process and retooling ect.

By the time this bass was made Overwater were based up north and not Denmark Street.

£599 is about £1750 in today's money allowing for inflation. I'd buy a new one of these for £1750 from Overwater nowadays, but somehow I don't think that would be the asking price. High-end basses have got proportionately more expensive over the years especially lately.🙁

The T-Bass was a fine bass but certainly an acquired taste rather than just another active Jazz Bass. The four string had a fast skinny neck, and a very hot output with a modern hyped-up kind of tone. If a Sadowsky is a Jazz Bass on steroids then the T-Bass was a Jazz Bass on illegal steroids bought from some dodgy bloke at the gym. The T-Bass wasn't necessarily a bass for typical.classic vintage Jazz Bass tones but it did have a sound of it's own that could be a lot of fun and really cut through the mix. I wouldn't pay over the odds for one but it's definitely a worthwhile bass to have. They could be pretty heavy though, so make sure your okay with the weight of any one you find to buy.

It looks like the most basic version of the bass Overwater made in the late 1970's/ early 1980's. I think it was called the Artisan, if I remember correctly. It might well have been a slightly different shape to the full-spec Thunderbird-style basses they made, a bit more compact, but I'm going back a long way in the recesses of my memory. A local guitar shop was an Overwater stockist and I remember they had one in stock. That will have been about 40 years ago. Anyhow, they were excellent quality instruments and would look the part nowadays in any indie/alternative rock band. I know that in those days a feature of top of the range Overwater basses was conical fretting, where the frets got progressively thinner going up the neck. It's worth checking if this bass has that. Anyhow, it's a really interesting bass and a very good find.

I totally agree with you about basses like Fodera and Dingwall, and so many others I could mention. At least Wal ( and Alembic) have a distinct sonic personality. So many high-end basses nowadays are, as you intimate, fairly interchangable and just not very interesting. I wouldn't pay a lot of money for a vintage Wal for various reasons. I could go into in detail but won't for risk of upsetting anyone who has one or wants to sell one. Suffice to say then that it's a mistake to confuse the heft of an old Wal bass for durability or robustness.I would ,however, buy a new bass made by Paul Herman if he weren't so chronically back-ordered. If he could deliver a bass in say 12 months he could have my money now. Who knows, maybe the tariffs in America on imported goods will bring down wait times, but probably not enough, being realistic.

Late 1970's when they were becoming a full-time ongoing concern.

The reason I mention Alembic in relation to Wal is because they have a filter-based preamp, not because they are structurally or sonically similar. They're equally great and equally quirky in their own way.

Rush trying to be the Police worked pretty well, I agree. It was a refreshing shift in direction. By the time they were trying to channel the Foo Fighters, however, the game was up.

I know the don't, but I could console myself with one.🙂

Everyone is entitled to their own favourites, that's great, but what strikes me when I listen even to the older Rush albums is that right from when Neil Peart joined the band everything was there in place even then. If you listen to Fly By Night they're already three individually brilliant musicians who combine to make a whole even greater than the sum of those parts. The opening track, Anthem, is a tour de force that lets the world know something special is happening here so pay attention. Not many bands can play like that, then or now.

I first saw them live on the Permanent Waves tour in 1980. I remember my older brother's friends going to their gig at Sheffield City Hall on the Farewell To Kings tour, and that was their first ever UK performance. I also remember my school friends going to the one-off show at Stafford New Bingley Hall in the autumn of 1979, also now a legendary gig. Rush were a special band in those days, they had a certain mystique that probably couldn't exist nowadays in the post-internet age of unbridled access. That was their golden age.

I always felt about Rush that from the mid-'80's onwards their songs and arrangements got progressively worse to the extent that they were making albums that were mainly dense,dreary and very hard to listen to. Musically, their best albums were busy but still with space and contrasting textures. Geddy's keyboard playing contributed a lot to that, I think. . Like so many bands, as they aged it became find that elusive thing that made the songs interesting in their earlier days. It's to Rush's credit that they experimented and tried to stay current, but at a certain point it wasn't working but they kept doing it anyway because they couldn't think of anything else to do

The last time I saw Rush was in Sacramento on the Counterparts tour. They were flawless but a bit detached. Seemed like to them it was just another gig to notch off the schedule, which I suppose is understandable. Anyhow, What's for certain is that Anika Niles will now be the most Googled drummer in the world! The more I see her play the more I think she's a good fit for Rush.

It's easy to forget nowadays, but for a very long time I mostly had one bass at a time, at the most two, and I had to sell that bass in order to buy whatever I fancied to replace it. I figured it was better to have one or two good basses than a few cheaper ones. This back in the days when most inexpensive instruments were pretty poor. From when I started playing I always aspired to the best quality instruments, and I was in a process of progressively trading upwards from that point. Having a few basses is a luxury I really appreciate nowadays, even if I'm not using most of them regularly. I just like having them around.

Your right, it's a conspiracy.

Again, stillI don't really know what reverse misogyny is or how I would be involved. I never said it was a fact that they had chosen a female drummer to divert comparisons with Peart, I explicitly said I didn't know. I just said it was very significant that they had, and that would be the effect. They have created a narrative of how and why they chose her. I was reading it this afternoon. And as with any narrative, what's left out can be as important as what's included.

I think vintage instruments can get better with age to the extent that over time owners might have gotten their faults addressed by a luthier. I've played countless vintage Fenders over the years, some were enjoyable, some less so, but they didn't sound other-worldly compared to a nice new one. The sound just isn't that different. It's more the feel and what that gives you. I don't think there's much milage in their electronics maturing like wine and improving. The pickups do tend to get more microphonic over the years and I suppose that will change the tone a bit.

I don't think Rush having a female drummer is any kind of a token gesture or social statement. It is, however, a way of circumventing comparisons with Neil Peart. I've been watching Anika Niles a bit on YT. She's obviously a very technical player and will easily be able to play those songs. It's more Geddy and Alex I'm worried about! She's the right kind of drummer for Rush. The wrong kind of drummer would have been a groove-based player, like most famous session drummers.

What I indignant reverse misogyny baloney is that ? I think what you mean is that you don't feel the drummers gender is relevant, and feelings are not facts. You have no more evidence that gender isn't relevant than I have that it is. If your so sure it isn't relevant tell us why. I'm genuinely interested to hear why you feel the need to forbid discussion on the subject.

I don't like late-era Rush with Neil Peart on drums. I wouldn't like that music with a new drummer, either. That's the point. I would say Grace Under Pressure was the last decent Rush album. After that they made albums with a few good tracks on, at best, then after Test For Echo they made albums with no good tracks on.

I know, but nothing sounds like a Wal. A proper Alembic would be an acceptable substitute, I suppose. That's a whole other can of worms.