Bassassin

It's 100% year of manufacture. Having dabbled in the restoration & selling of vintage instruments, this is somewhat axiomatic. The caveat is when it's still a manufacturer's current model to which there have been no incremental changes, it's completely reasonable for a retailer to sell it as current. As far as re-selling's concerned though, if there's a serial number giving year of manufacture, you will struggle to convince a buyer that it's not really as old as it says...

Maya's just a brand name, and you'll find it on a wide range of instruments of various quality levels. This is a pretty low-end bass - ply body, 2-saddle bridge and that little Tele-type pickup. These parts were intended to be hidden under the chrome covers it would have had when new. They're very common on low-end MIJ copies, here are a couple which have passed through my own shed: If you look closely, you'll notice the J is a Maya. The exact same bass was sold in the UK branded Avon. They go for a lot less money...

I've never heard that about ASOH. You sure you're not thinking of ESL? It's notorious for being re-recorded.

Interesting! I'd never encountered the 5050 before this popped up a couple of months back. Certainly educational, for me. https://www.basschat.co.uk/topic/345325-this-looked-interesting/

This is the album Geddy (I think it was him) described as "live-ish". Seems a lot of it had to be re-recorded in the studio...

A wise man* once said: "A gentleman is a man who can play slap bass. And doesn't." *Actually, it was me, so for "wise man" read "blithering simpleton".

It is indeed, and I'm not ashamed to say I badly want one of these. I like sparkly things and care not what anyone thinks. And neither should you, sorry, "your friend", @Paul Clifton!

Me and a couple of similarly underage schoolmates sneaked into a pub to see a punky/pub rock band who were getting a bit of a local reputation. That experience of up-close, sweaty live music in a tiny, packed venue, so different from the couple of "big" gigs I'd seen, convinced me that was what I had to do. Inspired, (and lubricated by a pint or two of illicit bitter top), me & the other guys formed a band & chose our instruments on the way home. Bass was a (mostly) rational decision based on the fact I only had a little bedroom & wouldn't be able to fit a drum kit into it! And talking my Mum into letting me get a bass would be easier... Anyway, me & my "band" mates all got instruments and went on to do various musical things - apart from ever playing together.

I don't mind it. The lyrics are a bit cringey, but it is Peart after all. Their real low-points (Dog Years, Anagram, Virtuality, Superconductor, Freeze, for example) are far better illustrations of a lack of quality control. Or perhaps self-awareness.

Burns Flyte,

IMO the best album of the synthy mid-80s era by a long way - sounds terribly dated now but I loved Peter Collins' production back in t'day.

I had a Ned a few years back (branded as CMI, the Marshall spinoff brand), not entirely sure from what I read at the time that these were "hand-made by Peter Cook", as that article suggests. Seem to remember they were also available branded Shaftesbury as well. Sold mine to @razze06, don't know if he still has it.

Watching, with somewhat queasy morbid curiosity.

Might well be relevant to the model - the info may be here, or someone on the forum might know: https://www.21frets.com/

I think that one might depend on the medium - I remember when Grace Under Pressure was released, being unsurprised that they'd moved on from Terry Brown's production, as Signals had sounded so grey and flat compared to MP. Competely revised that opinion a couple of decades later when I picked up the Signals remaster, which sounds lovely - arguably clearer and sparklier than the MP remaster. Gave the album a new lease of life for me.

Again - easy, by the time they did Dog Years, they really should have known better! Besides, Going Bald is genuinely, and I think intentionally funny, as well as being a semi-serious observation of a generation abandoning its youthful dreams & selling out. I can just about forgive it being a half-arsed re-tread of In The Mood, and therefore a 3rd-hand Led Zep ripoff!

Easy. Test For Echo. Hard to find a single redeeming feature - leaden, Rush-by-numbers instrumentation, awful, cringeworthy lyrics, Geddy mumbling away, sounding bored to death. The whole thing (uniquely in their career) stinks of contractual obligation. I suppose the artwork's quite nice.

Best Rush album? No such thing. Having had such a long career and gone through so many stylistic shifts over the decades, there is no single collection of songs that defines them. I think personal favourite albums will hinge on when you got into them. I can do personal favourite by decade, then overall favourite: 70s - A Farewell To Kings. First Rush album I bought, in 1979, blew my tiny little mind. 80s - Permanent Waves. This transitional point between flowery prog epics lyrics to a more aggressive, pared-back & succinct style is pretty much perfection. 90s - Counterparts. Likely inspired by the zeitgeist of the time, Rush finally abandoned walls of keyboards & pop production and remembered that they were actually a proper rock band. Some of their best writing in a decade, too. 00s - Vapor Trails. Difficult, uncomfortable album - their most experimental music; and Peart's most human, relatable lyrics by a long, long way. I would say if you have not heard the remix of this album, you haven't heard it at all. 10s - Clockwork Angels. Not perfect (no Rush album is) but contains some perfect moments. Good to hear Peart writing imaginative, conceptual lyrics again. Shame it was their last, but a high note to end on. I think because of the pretty much unfiltered nature of their writing, Rush's output has always been uneven. There are a good few albums I don't think I'd go back to and listen through again - although with one exception (Test For Echo), every album has a gem or two. If I had to pick an overall favourite, it would be Permanent Waves - really this is the point at which Rush defined their own sound and stopped sounding like - in fact, being - a mishmash of identifiable influences. Their most consistently stratospheric writing and playing, and a production that properly captured the raw edge of their live sound. Anyone else ever notoce that Rush albums come in distinct pairs? IMO this is a rule that held true up until their hiatus following Test For Echo. They would always seem to make two related, or stylistically similar albums, and then move on - eg Caress Of Steel/2112, KIngs/Hemispheres, Permanent Waves/Moving Pictures etc.

Our very own Mr @BigRedX is selling his: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Burns-Sonic-Bass-1960s-With-Original-Hard-Case/193030714348 A bit modded, with a massive 80s brass bridge & stripped finish - but a crazy bargain compared to the other two.

As long as you remember that "crud" and "filler" are your subjective opinions, and not held by either the guys who wrote the music, or many people who'd call themselves Tool fans. I'm unsure whether the "Holy Gift" running order was what the band originally wanted, or just something dreamt up by overzealous fans with a Fibonacci Sequence fixation.

https://newsthump.com/2019/01/07/new-album-by-tool-will-take-almost-as-long-to-listen-to-as-it-took-to-record