Monkey Steve

I once had a chat with Pete Stevens about it, with him very worked up because he'd just had a magazine review that criticised the weight of the basses. In his opinion "it sounds like it sounds because it's got a mahogany core and mahogany is not light, If you want a Wal, that's what it weighs, if you want a lighter bass then there are plenty of others they can buy, but they won't sound like mine" That said, I've got a couple of Les Paul standards and one is massively heavier than the other, not because of any chambering in the lighter one but because of the much higher density of the mahogany that's been used in the heavy one. Personally I quite like a heavier bass

once again, it's not about the gigs, it's about hanging out and enjoying playing music with each other. why do you keep going on about the number of gigs? You asked whether the ad was good, and almost all of us say it is because it tells everybody exactly what the band is after. You seem to disagree because you wouldn't want to join the band. That's a different question to the one that you asked. The only way that your argument that it's not a good ad holds any weight is if they do in fact play five times a week and have put you off applying for a band that would really suit you.

You seem obsessed with the gigs, when the ad is very clearly telling you that it’s not about the gigs at all. The band is about hanging out and playing music with other musicians who make no pretence about wanting to make money or play every night, they just want to hang out and play music. For some people that’s really all they want

ha! auto anti swear corrected my last post to "Richard" we are possibly the classiest forum on the planet

which bit do you think is asking too much? I genuinely don't understand what you think is unreasonable here - they are very clear that they are not doing it for a living but want to play to as high a standard as possible and don't want anybody who will Richard them around. As many others have said, that will suit a lot of people, so how is an ad aimed at exactly those types of people wrong?

I know it's redundant for the OP now, but Knight Guitars in Surrey are excellent too

I always thought that Wal could make a fortune by giving up making the basses and just selling the pickups and electronics. I'd certainly put them on all my other basses

This The second hand prices for top of the range Warwicks are insultingly cheap (as I know to my cost from selling a couple) so if you fancy a Thumb, have a browse https://www.ebay.co.uk/b/Warwick-Bass-Guitars/4713/bn_25711263

I think it comes back to "best player" or "best fit for the band"? Cliff Williams is never going to win any awards for virtuosity, but I bet he wouldn't be short of job offers if he ever decides to come out of retirement

Just paid the deposit for a Mk II five string this week. Paul confirmed that they will provide a CITIES cert if you have any rosewood and are having the bass sent overseas (or if you ask for one I guess), but at a cost of £120. I've avoided this by having an ebony fretboard...which wasn't done to avoid future CITIES difficulties and it's costing me an extra £195...perhaps if I tell myself that I'm saving £120 so it's only costing me an extra £75...

when I sold my last Wal the other year I was fine with it right up until the buyer came round and plugged it into my amp to check that it was all in working order...and that sound came out...too late to change my mind, but did make me think that I should start planing to get "my" Wal

best idea is to drop Paul a message through the Wal website and just ask for the specs so you're in no doubt. His answer to my question about how slim can he make it because the old ones were a bit tubbier than my Warwick wasn't quite "you tell me what you want and I'll build it" but more along the lines of "this is what we do as standard, how does that compare with the dimensions of the neck you're thinking of?"

funnily enough, I've had exactly this discussion with Paul himself this week Similar to the OP, I am determined to get a new Wal - had a couple in the past (dating from the '80s and '90s) love the sound, but they weren't to my specs (one was second hand, one was new but built to somebody else's specs so was ready to pick up if i wanted one straight away, which i did at the time) and I never felt that they were "my" basses, so have been planning to get one to my exact requirements. And one of the niggles was that the necks were a little chunky - still very playable, and had that gorgeous sound, but, well, not quite "my" bass. So I figured I'd go for a new one and get exactly what I want. Here's his reply (only helps if you're after a five string): Here are our standard 5-string dimensions: > >Neck width @ nut= 46.7mm and @ 24th fret = 71.5mm/2.82'' >Neck depth @ 2nd fret =21.9mm/0.86'' and @ 12th = 24.18/0.95'' >Bridge saddle center spacing = 17mm/0.67'' This is almost identical to my thru-neck Warwick (that is extremely slim and fast) - a mm or two out at most, so I'm very happy. Does make me wonder if it's my perception that the old Wals were chunkier because of how it felt at the top end, or if they were just made chunkier, either back in the day or for a particular order. One other point to raise, having just pulled the trigger and paid the deposit (yesterday). There's no way to disguise the fact that the price is a lot of money for a bass so I've been putting it off because I didn't have the cash lying around looking for a home. I'm fortunate enough to get a bonus each year, and in a good year that would cover the cost, but assumes that I don't spend it on anything, and my dreams of a new bass this year were dashed when my laptop and hoover packed up, to be added to the list of other stuff that I need to spend some of the bonus on. Then the penny dropped that it's going to take two years to build the bass, and I don't need to pay for all of it up front. So I asked for details. £1k up front, which is non-returnable (slightly more if you pay by PayPal to cover the extra admin costs). That gets you a specs sheet to confirm what you're after. Then nothing for six to nine months, when Paul gets round to starting on the neck, at which point he wants another £1k. And that's all you need to pay until it's ready. So for me I don't need to find £6-7k from this year's bonus, I only need to find £2k, which I can do, and means I place the order now rather than putting it off for another year (so that's a new Wal in two years time rather than three). Excess pay will be going into a savings account/Wal fund, and by the time next year's bonus gets added that should cover everything well ahead of time.

good luck Froggy - I hope it all works out. At the very least it should be far less stressful have you left the door open for the sensible guitarist to join when he's considered his position?

I think that's exactly the point. The question was whether it's a good ad, not whether it's a band you would want to join. It's a good ad because it explains exactly what they are looking for, what they expect from you, and what you can expect to get out of the band. The purpose of any ad should surely be to get the most suitable people to apply, not to trick people who won't fit into trying out - if you or Blue don't fancy it then it's saved everybody's time, your and theirs, because you know it isn't for you. Far better not to apply than to quit three months later because you want to be playing every night and they don't.

whoever happens to be playing bass in the Gang of Four usually does it for me. Got all their stuff from an assortment of bass players and it's all excellent

with regards to the OP's reasons for asking, there's perhaps a different angle of attack - not how good are you in any objective sense, but how good a fit are you for the band you're in?

like it - good ad I can certainly sympathise with their list of demands, it's extremely clear about the intentions, and it's very plain that they just want to have a bit of a laugh and nothing more - my personal bugbear is that differing views on what constitutes "commitment" which for some people means rehearsing three times a week and playing every weekend, and for others means showing up whenever they don't have anything better to do. The one point that's missing is whether they expect to be paid for the five or six gigs. I think it's implicit that it's not going to be a money making exercise (unless they happen to be Pink Floyd and the gigs are quite large), but maybe a little bit more info on whether the gigs are playing friends birthdays for a couple of beers or if they are a higher level that is going to pay back at least some of the rehearsal costs.

have any of you insured your gear? Quite often it's included as an extra in the policy - have a check to see if you already have it before you spend extra on a specific policy

given that: 1. it's not a regular source of income; 2. you're not enjoying it; and 3. You have something better lined up I can't see why you need our advice on what to do next The only thing I'd suggest is trying to force your good guitarist's hand and see which way he jumps. I've done that before (although in my case the guitarist was the one that we wanted to get rid of) where I quit the band, and then the key bandmates that I'd been talking to about forming a new band with had to pick between auditioning a new bass player for a band with a guitarist they didn't really want, or coming with me and finding a new guitarist.

hate gold jewellery, hate gold hardware on guitars and basses. hate the way it is used by manufacturers as being shorthand for some sort of luxury option I have had a couple of instruments with gold hardware and it always nags away at me until I get round to replacing it, usually with nickle/chrome

This - due diligence. If you're going to spend silly money on a vintage instrument then, like a guitarist mate of mine did when he went to look at a vintage Strat, you're perfectly entitled to take your screwdrivers with you to make sure that the neck matches the body and the paint, pickups and pots all tie up.

an old demo from one of my bands! to explain my huge ego, there is a bit of a back story to give it context. A few years back the band in question, doing covers, recorded a demo, just to have something to send out to get gigs. The demo itself wasn't the problem, but it brought to a head everything that we all hated in the archetypal lead guitarist (starts with a c, rhymes with shunt). We'd been paying the engineer who recorded us to mix it, and it was in pretty good shape, but the guitarist spat his dummy out that we should have the good grace to wait for him to finish the mixes that he had been doing himself on Pro Tools and how dare we even suggest sending copies out before he was happy? In one spectacularly satisfying weekend he went from thinking he was the big deal in two bands (my band shared the drummer and rhythm guitarist with another band that he was in) to finding that his services were no longer required, and specifically not because he wasn't an OK guitarist but because everybody thinks he's such a complete bellend. So, the satisfaction of that aside, the whole demo has been reduced to a bad memory, and I never copied the tracks I'd been e-mailed to a CD or listened to it since then... Until a couple of months ago I found some of the tracks sitting in the "Unknown Artist, Unknown Album" slush pile on my iTunes. Turns out it was pretty good. Well, two of the three songs are. Can't stop listening to it

I'd add to the list of recommendations with an Ortega. they do a range of models at a range of costs https://www.gear4music.com/Acoustic_Guitars/Ortega-Acoustic-Bass I have the Ken Taylor signature model (no idea who Ken is, I just liked the bass) 5 string, and it's great to play, and louder than my acoustic guitar. In fact I have to change my style to stop it from disturbing the neighbours...on reflection it's probably because i do hammer the strings somewhat. That one's not within the £500 budget, but if one comes up on ebay?

Amazon are no doubt very aware of their legal responsibilities here, and as ever do not want to get into battle over enforcing them. They are still potentially responsible for stuff that goes wrong up to six years after you've bought it, depending on how long you might reasonably assume that things will work for in the first place. I looked into this when I was going to buy a new TV from a seller through Amazon, which stated that it had a 5 year guarantee on Amazon, then found it cheaper on the seller's own website, and wrongly assumed that it would also have the 5 year guarantee and only found out after I'd bought it that I only had a one year manufacturer's guarantee. I was muttering to a friend about how John Lewis (from where I'd bought my last TV) offer a 5 year guarantee on all their TVs so maybe it's worth paying the extra, and they pointed out that every TV you buy effectively has a 6 year guarantee so why worry about it (it's a little more complicated than that, but as a broad principle it's right). The best summary is that under the Sale of Goods Act, now replaced by the Consumer Rights Act, if you buy something that goes wrong within a period where you might reasonably have expected it to work properly, then the seller is required to repair or replace it, regardless of guarantees or their current relationship with the manufacturer. Good overview here: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/feb/05/how-long-electrical-goods-guaranteed The one caveat of note is that they can knock off an amount for the use you've had. Which makes getting the bag strap replaced after such heavy use above and beyond the legal requirements