chris_b

Mark Smith isn't bad. Is he making a living from teaching bass? I've looked at several of his videos and gained from them, but IMO he's selling you a 2 bed terrace while Scott is selling you a 3 bed semi-detached with planning permission to extend as big as you want. Really, this isn't a put down for MS, it's just that SBL seems to be designed to take you further.

All I could think of was the plaster falling off the neighbours chimney breast.

Sadly, in the UK, with success comes the negativity! We've seen it with others and now it's Scott's turn. Most of us come and go and leave no impression on bass playing. I think its a no-brainer that the bass world is a far better place for Scott Devine being in it. He isn't always to my taste but as he isn't always talking to me, I wouldn't expect everything to be relevant. SBL is a quality product that I guess is designed to reach and help the widest range of bass players who are at many levels of development and have many interests. A tough task and I don't see anyone even half as good at it as Scott.

+1 If you are recording or using in-ears the smallest details can make a difference, but on a gig, standing next to a drummer, those subtle differences will be hard to spot. Just pick the bass that sounds good to you. I've owned alder and ash basses and the differences are pretty much evened out by your amp and cabs. I'm picky about my overall sound but I wouldn't say yes or no to a bass based on the wood. The weight is a problem. I'd own one if they came in at under 9lbs.

+1 IMO if you are serious about downsizing for your comfort/health/back then a modular rig with separate amp and cabs is the way to go. I'd stick with the amp for the time being so you can put the whole budget towards the cab(s). The good news is that these days you can easily do much better than a 412. IMO a 212 by Mesa, Bergantino, Vanderkley, Genzler or Barefaced etc would easily beat your old cab for tone and volume. You have a lot of great choices these days, including light 210's and 410's. When I had to downsize I looked at powerful lightweight cabs and bought a couple of Barefaced 112's. At 21lbs each my back is thanking me on every gig. These cabs are 600 watts each and a 500 watt amp will be loud enough to fill any room and meet any gigging situation.

IMO using one finger does bring benefits. To me the notes sound more even, as does the tone and I find it's easier to play slower or mid-tempo songs with one finger. I have to switch up to two fingers as soon as I have to play the fast bits, though.

I understand, but doesn't playing the bass better also count as enjoyment?

I don't disagree with that, but if the band wants to play a song and you can't play the bass line comfortably then you should meet and overcome that challenge. You should play that line until you get it right and you are happy playing it. Once you can play it then you can start to alter things. I once vetoed Do I Do because I couldn't play it. That was the wrong decision. Now I would learn to play that thing because my attitude these days is nothing on this instrument is going to beat me. I'm currently learning Dean Town. Not because I like it but because I can't play it.

So far I haven't seen anyone condoning sloppy or poor playing in this thread. Are you saying that cover bands should only ever be playing exactly the same notes as the original did on the record? As was mentioned earlier, even the original bands can change the arrangements and lines of their songs when they play live. Cover songs aren't a fixed thing. They live, breath and, sometimes, cough their lungs up. It's what music played by enthusiasts does.

If you are watching a semi pro cover band why do you care about caring for the songs? I don't go to see bands who don't play well. It's not an enjoyable experience, but they are not playing for me, so as long as the intended audience is enjoying themselves all is good.

So we have people saying they can't hear the difference and people who say they can. I'd draw the obvious conclusions from those experiences that high mass bridges make a difference and people hear differently. Pretty much the same conclusions as the interminable and tedious wood threads.

I'd play Footloose with the same feel and maybe most of the same notes. The intro and verse are pretty straightforward. The chorus is basically the left hand of a rock and roll piano line. On the record the chorus is written because it is doubled up with a guitar. Unless your guitarist wants to do that, keep the feel and busk it.

It doesn't help that they screw up the intro, but they play the same line without any fluffs at the end of the verses.

It's you playing a cover. So you don't have to copy every note. How would you remember every note anyway! You only have to get the feel and essence of the song but, unless it's a riff, you don't have to play every note in the exact place. In this song the verse has an octave feel. Get that right and do what Flea does. . . put your own fills in between.

I'd suggest an East Unipre with Bart split coil pickups. Or an out board preamp, such as the EBS MicroBass II Preamp Pedal.

That's the place. Thanks.

The TH500 is 250 watts into 8 ohms.

I don't know. I'm sure it rankles that he can't make a successful solo career.

Electrical stuff will always have a failure rate. These days its a pretty small number but it will never be zero. My brand new Mesa 400+ blew a valve the first time we plugged it in, in the shop. I'd email Aguilar and ask their opinion and if they have a service or repair centre in the UK.

Keep the bass and buy the wife something. Bribery always works.

My wife used to try on the old, "I've had that dress in the wardrobe for years, it's just that I've never worn it" trick! I'll usually tell my wife if there is a bass that I'm interested in. I'll list all the reasons why this new bass would be better than what I've got. She doesn't understand a word, listens like she does and usually ends by telling me, "If you think it's that good, get it". Mostly, by the time I've finished talking through all the points I've decided to keep the old one.

Really?? I think we've seen experienced players didn't react.

While Keith Richards said he "considered" BF to be a Stone, BF was more realistic when he said he'd "been a side-man for 30 years, but he'd never be a member of the Stones". I don't think Keith cares but Jagger seems to be the one wanting to share the pot with the fewest number of people. I believe Ronnie Wood was on wages for 25 years and the others thought he was a "full" member and were surprised to find out that he'd never been signed up.