Dan Dare

Would it be worth taking a day's holiday from work and going somewhere such as Bass Direct to try a range of gear? Go in the week when the shop is quiet and you can try stuff to your heart's content. I did that several years ago when I was not sure what upgrade route to take and found it very helpful. It was also costly because I bought an expensive new toy, but I haven't regretted it because I was able to compare quite extensively, so don't suffer from "What if I had bought X? Would it have been better?"

"Whether you're a seasoned musician or a collector, this rare piece is sure to impress". What better way to tell people "I'm a chancer who found this in a house clearance. I know nothing about musical instruments"?

£200 postage, too. I reckon someone's been told by the missus "I'm sick of these bloody basses cluttering up the place", so he's stuck it on the 'Bay at a silly price so he can tell her "I'm trying to sell it, dear. Honest. No takers as of yet, sadly".

But you weren't a beginner if you were offered a well paying gig. Unless there isn't anyone else within a 100 mile radius of you who plays the bass... Look, I get it. We all love quality gear (not going to be trashy and brag about what I use, but it isn't budget). It just seems patronising to imply someone is wasting their time unless they start out with a grand's worth of kit. Being hard up isn't the only reason someone might balk at paying two grand for a small AER combo. I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford one, but it wouldn't suit my needs, so I haven't got one. It does happen quite a lot on here that, when someone asks for advice on starter gear, people leap in recommending Barefaced, AER, PJB and similar. It smacks of trying to appear clever. I also wonder how many who recommend such stuff actually own and use it, as opposed to repeating what they've read in reviews. The best advice one can give anyone looking for their first rig is to visit a decent shop or two (or perhaps the home of a kindly bass player - several generous souls on here do offer that sometimes) and try stuff out.

Someone else dropping expensive names such as AER and PJB. Why do this? Is it to demonstrate good taste and knowledge when it comes to gear? The request was pretty simple - a newcomer to playing the bass wants a nice-sounding bass practice amp/small portable amp for small venues. It doesn't need to be "narrowed down". It's complete as it is. Nobody apart from the wealthy is going to buy pro-level stuff straight off the bat. Wealthy people do not ask for advice on forums such as this. They take the trusty gold card or, if they're old school, a wad of notes, to somewhere like Bass Direct or The Gallery (maybe even have someone else do it for them) and spend, spend, spend. There's no shame in recommending good honest budget gear.

When anyone posts along the lines of "Newbie here. Please recommend a small combo for practice, etc that sounds good", many recommend kit costing between £500 and a grand (Barefaced, Markbass, PJB and similar). Yes, they may be of good quality, but a lot of beginners don't have anything like that kind of budget. I'd go used and get something like the 100w Rumble combo mentioned above. They work well and are easy to sell on when/if you wish to upgrade.

See above - exercise your fretting hand, don't give up, you'll be better for it in the long run, etc, etc.

A lot of these low budget offerings are quite decent as far as neck, body, etc are concerned. The fittings are where corners are cut (something has to give - £99 retail equates to about £40 at the factory gate). By the time you've improved pickups, tuners, wiring, pots, etc to a reasonable standard, you may as well buy a Squier or similar.

If you fancy short-scale, go for it. Ignore the "real men play 34" scale" talk. 34" is only the default because that Fender fellow settled on it. Some 5 and 6 strings are 35" scale or even longer. If you are struggling with the stretch, don't give yourself RSI or make yourself miserable. I'm fortunate in that I have large hands and find 34" no trouble, but we're all different. I also started on the violin when I was very young, so had good hand and wrist flexibility before I even picked up a bass. Head for the shops or the home of a kindly BC member, try a few and see how you get on. It's what you like that counts.

This. Budget instruments are extremely good for the money nowadays. When I started in the early 70s, they were rubbish. £250 today gets you a used instrument of the quality we could only dream about back then.

In the size of room you have and with the requirements - no drums to compete with, etc - you describe, 100W should be perfectly adequate unless you want to shake the walls. Just about any decent quality combo rated at 100W or more with a 10" or 12" speaker would be fine. If you plan to record through it, an onboard DI would be useful if you want to capture the sound of the amp itself (although an external DI box would work for this if the amp has a preamp out). In your shoes, I'd visit a few local shops, try things out to find out what you like and then look for it second-hand.

Brown Thunderbird bass? That instrument is obviously black. Clear contravention of the Trades Descriptions Act. Shocking.

This. Pretty shocking, isn't it? The string is not even partially over the pole piece.

Even he has standards...

Make subjective judgments "apply more objectively"? Good luck with that. All the terms quoted are used in an attempt to convey sound via words. A bit like wine tasters attempting to describe taste/flavour in print. Doomed, I tell you. Doomed to failure.

Spot on. It's why I take nothing for a headache (nothing acts faster than Anadin, after all)

I think readership of magazines and viewing of magazine-type YT channels and similar depends on where people are in their journey. When I were a lad and it was all fields round 'ere, I devoured magazines, articles and anything else I find to help me learn. Now I'm ancient and reasonably satisfied with the gear I own and the knowledge I have, I only read/watch them if I'm thinking of buying something and want to get the lowdown on it. Either that, or I might come across something new (to me) musically and wish to pick up tips on technique or add to my knowledge (such as learning what a semi-parametric is and how it works) to help me get to grips with it. That applies equally to my interests outside music. I rarely if ever look at angling or hi-fi mag's any more, either. That probably isn't a great help to you. Apologies, but I guess I'm not part of your typical target audience. I guess what I'm saying is that the most interest in what you do will likely be from people starting out or those wishing to improve their knowledge. So it's probably not a bad idea to aim a lot of your content in their direction.

I read magazines/reviews when I'm contemplating a purchase and want to get some info about what it is I intend to buy. Apart from that, no.

I realise that and my question remains. There is no automatic right to make a living as a musician, dancer, artist or anything for that matter. I kept a day job for the great majority of the 50 years between leaving education and retiring whilst playing in the evenings and at weekends, with occasional, usually brief, spells of playing music for a (just about) living. There are many reasons why someone cannot make a living from playing music - including lack of ability, not wanting to play what people are prepared to pay for, not being fortunate to be in the right place at the right time (luck always plays a part - I know plenty of great players who just haven't had the breaks), face not fitting and so on. There is always a living to be made on the function circuit. Having slogged around playing functions and similar during my attempts to make a living from music, I can assure you that there are plenty of regular jobs that are preferable to doing that. Not only because the gigs themselves are not enjoyable, but because you can find yourself becoming fed up with playing music itself if that's all you have time to do because you need to put food on the table. The advantage of having a day job is that you can afford to decline the soul-destroying gigs you would have to accept if you were solely dependant on music, meaning you can look forward to the ones you enjoy and keep your interest alive.

Norman

Why? There is no escaping from the fact that housing supply/availability is very much a political issue. Why tiptoe around the proverbial elephant in the room? If you do, there is no prospect of meaningful discussion. Much truth in this. The last London house I lived in was worth serious money, but it certainly wasn't the first property I owned. I and my partner started out in a modest place in a run-down area, did some work on it, sold and moved up slightly, rinse and repeat. I moved out of London after retirement for the reason stated - I didn't want to be rattling around in a large place after my partner passed and had always fancied living in the country. Good luck with that. Apart from the fact that any government that confiscated peoples' lawfully owned assets would be committing political suicide, establishing a precedent (even if it were possible) that enabled the state to do so would be the start of a slippery and dangerous slope. How long before a government used the power for political reasons, say be sequestering assets of those it didn't like? You need to think through the consequences before merrily proposing such draconian actions.

Agreed. The biggest problem (imho, of course) is that we don't have a healthy public/affordable housing sector any more, since many publicly owned properties were sold off. A healthy public/affordable housing stock acts as a counterbalance to the cost of private rented and owned housing, because people have a choice and aren't compelled to pay ridiculous prices to rent or buy privately. The crazy increases in the cost of private housing has coincided with the decimation of the publicly owned housing stock. If you suggest doing anything about it, people start frothing at the mouth about "socialism", etc. I don't think anything can be done about treating homes as assets. Put simply, they are assets. That would be true even if they cost a fraction of what they do. Property prices are a simple consequence of demand massively out-stripping supply (in areas where people want or are able to live). People have no choice other than to pay the prices demanded if they want to live a realistic distance from where they work. The only thing that will change that is a massive increase in the supply of housing, but land is in short supply in populous areas, so where do you put the new homes? Population growth isn't helping, too. Afraid I don't think anything will change, either.

Given that they are not SVT sized lumps and you aren't bothered about the money, I'd keep both. Always handy to have a spare tucked away.

Are you really motoring for £2.5k a year all in? As Tim points out, motoring is one of those drip-drip expenses that builds up to a tidy sum over the months without you realising it. £5k works out at only £100 per week. As an all-up cost, that's not a lot. If you're covering some miles in a 2 litre estate, how much are you spending on fuel? My car is 2.4 petrol and I live in the country, so I use it quite a bit. I'm spending at least £50 a week on fuel, often more. Like you, I buy old cars for cash (so no loan repayments), do my own servicing and keep them on the road as long as I can, but even then it works out at around £100 a week all in by the time I've factored in insurance, VED, repairs I can't do myself, etc, which is the figure Tim stated.