risingson

I use one sometimes, but mainly rely on my palm-muting technique. Hard obviously to get the pumping 16th thing down though. Check out our band's cover of 'Head It Through the Grapevine', 'Signed Sealed Delivered', 'Live and Let Die' and 'Under Pressure' (www.myspace.com/bikergroove), all played on a Fender Jazz with rounds or a '67 Hofner Violin w/ flats respectively, with a foam mute.

Deon Estus got a few bass lessons off of Jamerson himself!

Got to agree with most of the posts, the few Sadowskys I've played have sounded fantastic flat. The preamp used sparingly is enough. Also the VTC extra on the Metros I think are a must. I plan to put an order in for a Sadowsky asap, and I'm going to make sure to high heaven that it's got a VTC in it.

Shop around, not all 5 stringers will have the same neck profile and string spacing, and also it might be a case of getting used to the transition between the two as well. Personally I would go for the 5 string, I think (though some might disagree) that the G string is really worth keeping, and probably not worth sacrificing.

Cool, cool thread. Bear with me, just got back from a gig and am a bit pissed. I'll probably go into way too much detail as well... I'm good at missing the points or posts like this!! [b]FENDER:[/b] [b]Jazz[/b] - well crafted, well rounded instrument, a lot of fun to play. My favourite bass design, will never date. [b]Precision[/b] - What beds a track like a p-bass? Flats = Jamerson and big old funk grooves. [b]ERNIE BALL/MUSICMAN[/b] [b]Stingray[/b] - ballsey, gritty and bright. Not everyone's slap sound, but definitely good. Would play one but would always worry about low end loss. Superb neck profile [b]Sterling[/b] - always struck me as a bit lightweight, would take a Stingray over one. 3-way switching not for me. Too many options [b]Sabre[/b] - bit of an underdog! Not pretty (IMO) but I'm sure it would be ace [b]RICKENBACKER[/b] [b]4001/4003[/b] - got to plead ignorance, but can't tell a difference? McCartney's later years. Would love one, but probably the wrong bass for me. [b]4005[/b] - WANT ONE, just like Mani's, paint-splattered. Flatwounds please. Dub-central. [b]HOFNER[/b] [b]Violin bass[/b] - McCartney aside, put tapes or flats on one and flat out, one of the best basses I've ever recorded with. Hip-Hop central, fat sound. There's good reason why it's all over Dr. Dre's tracks. Overpriced a bit though. Some other big brands [b]WARWICK[/b] - nice basses, but not for everyone. Streamer Stage I or II, the latter in 5 string. Was a massive Zender-head ya see, but give or take. [b]SADOWSKY[/b] - MV-5, shell-pink or an M5 in burst with an ebony neck please. Some of the best basses I've ever heard. [b]MTD[/b] - yeh, give me an 535 and I'd be very happy. [b]LAKLAND[/b] - Joe Osborn 5 with flats. Wouldn't argue with a DJ-5 or a Bob Glaub either. Very faithful Fender replicas, much better too. [b]IBANEZ[/b] - always been a bit skeptical. Not my cup of tea [b]YAMAHA[/b] - really like their TRB5PII's. [b]FODERA[/b] - Like their Emperors, otherwise pug-ugly and probably not worth investing in personally. [b]STATUS[/b] - personally don't like graphite in bass construction aside from truss-rod re-enforcement. [b]RITTER[/b] - they'd be better making weird lamps. Lamps with active electronics. Bah. Make what you will of my drunken ramblings!

Good melodic player, though must admit, a bit sharp sometimes! Mind you, I don't think I could do a better job on fretless.

[quote name='EBS_freak' post='482108' date='May 7 2009, 03:58 PM']Why specifically Nordys?[/quote] I wanted the NJ4SV's instead of the stock Fender U.S pups for a change, and for humcancelling capability. I still will probably do this, but the actives don't really appeal to me. I'd consider looking to Dimarzio as well.

[quote name='Earbrass' post='482176' date='May 7 2009, 05:02 PM']But for a lot of us, the money is pretty much irrelevant. I just want to make music I like and share it with people who appreciate it. I simply don't look at music as a way of making money (though I have made a modest amount of money from it in the past, when I was heavily involved in soundtrack work). In fact, if by some miracle the band I play in became commercially successful (it's not going to happen), I'd probably leave, as there's no way I'd ever give up my day job to go on tour etc. For me, if music making became a job, it'd kill all the fun. That's what I mean by "non-commercial" music - music that's made for the joy of making it, not for money.[/quote] You're absolutely right, believe me, I've had nights out where this argument has come up and it always remains unresolved. I've just turned 20 and I would like to think in the future that I will be able to make some money out of what I do, but I took up music to enjoy it, and I always will. I just try and be realistic in my view. I understand that of course that music to most musicians means more to them than the money. But I guess you need to be able to make sacrifices to get to where you want to be. I guess some people would call it selling out, but you've got to fake it to make it, i.e. maybe sometimes you need to do things you're not so fussed on before you get to the position where you can call your own shots. Hope I haven't drifted off of topic too much!

[quote name='Earbrass' post='482142' date='May 7 2009, 04:29 PM']I would have thought quite the opposite; nowadays, with the internet and all the technology at our disposal, isn't it easier than ever for people to produce and distribute their own music without the backing of the big corporations, and to find and communicate with their audience, however tiny and niche that audience may be? Surely this ought to be a golden age for non-commercial music, compared to the situation a few decades ago?[/quote] It all depends on how much money you want to make. Currently I should imagine (having just done a huge part of my course on indie labels) that the current climate for such is quite poor... which is a shame, because I am about to be running a small label and a studio. The major labels still have the monopoly on things. Look at the profits on an independent distributor like CD Baby. They tout themselves on how much money they've made for indie artists who want to make it on their own, and true enough, they've helped generate quite a bit of money, but if you look at the profit of the individual musician, it's barely anything at all. The money they claim to have made is spread too thin to consider it a viable option for making any sort of living, or even a one off cash bonus.

He's been playing those for a while now. They look pretty ace actually. I do love the Manics...

Heard the John East is good, was considering putting it in my Jazz with some Nordys but prefer passive basses. Might want to consider the Sadowsky floor preamp as well?

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='482078' date='May 7 2009, 03:34 PM']Hey, I'm not saying these assumptions are good things or totally correct, but they exist. To most people Jazz is not "faceless". If it was, no one would be laughing at the Fast Show "Jazz Club" sketches.[/quote] Touche on the Fast Show sketch. I dunno, I think perhaps you're right, but hey, if there are people who think like that then they're only as closed to new music as the musos who champion their beloved jazz. I personally try not to subscribe to any assumption or image.

[quote name='BigRedX' post='481303' date='May 6 2009, 06:39 PM']Has it got to be pointy? If not, how about a Gus G3? [/quote] That bloke who designed those things must have known what that extended horn looked like...

I've always been an advocate of doing it yourself. No point kidding yourself and others into believing you've mistreated your instrument.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='482064' date='May 7 2009, 03:18 PM']But if the slightly elitist attitude and image of Jazz puts people off the genre, its not unreasonable to suggest that some of these people might also be musicians. The point is, in an image focussed world, Jazz does its self no favours.[/quote] I think that actually, people that make assumptions about any genre of music aren't doing themselves any favours. By all means, dislike a type of music, it's a free world, but opinions based on a minority of people are by no means the be all and end all. Jazz has always remained faceless to me. I'm sure there was an image at one stage or another that went with jazz reminiscent of some cliched beatnik wearing a beret and wielding bongos and a joint, but it's a close-minded assumption that all jazz musicians are of this ilk.

[quote name='Earbrass' post='481938' date='May 7 2009, 01:28 PM']I just don't buy into the idea that music only matters if it's making money for someone, or has a wide appeal or a cool image. To me those are completely irrelevant to what makes good music.[/quote] True enough, but the original point was that how well valued is jazz in the 21st century. I think IMO that like it or not, 21st century music has everything to do with the consumer market. It's again not something that a lot of musicians like to accept, but it makes up a large factor of the dictation of trends.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481844' date='May 7 2009, 12:29 PM']....to be more focussed on image![/quote] You're kidding? Since the 20's, nay even longer (centuries) music has been associated with image. Anyway, the point was that not about image, rather the accessibility of jazz music to a musician.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481820' date='May 7 2009, 12:15 PM']Really? Why is Jazz not as popular as "pop" acts that focus on image over musically?[/quote] But it WAS once that big. Just not anymore. Music has moved on.

[quote name='BigBeefChief' post='481768' date='May 7 2009, 11:34 AM']Regardless on my personal tastes, I don't think Jazz does itself any favours from an image perspective. I know music shouldn't be about image, but it mostly is! To an outsider looking in, not only is the music pretty inpenetratable, but the image of the elitist jazz musician/listener puts people off. You read it on here all the time. Jazz fans say "I find Popular music doesn't satisfy me anymore". Maybe it doesn't, and there's nothing wrong with that view, but on a web forum it does sound slightly pompous! I think that part of the appeal of Jazz to some is the feeling that its an exclusive club. If it were to start charting, these fans would move on to another genre. However, this can probably be said for any non-mainstream genre of music. Personally, my views on the music are well documented. As a rule, I tend to stay away from music that is mostly popular with other musos. It does nothing for me.[/quote] Disagree with the image and accessibility thing, jazz is only as accessible as you wish it to be. You get the musos, sure, but you'll often find that their credibility is somewhat undermined by their arrogant and misinformed viewpoints. You just need to know how to stand up to them

[quote]unlike the pap that passes for rock these days, which is of course, saving the world.[/quote] With the greatest of respect, there is a lot of good music out there nowadays if you were to look hard enough. It's fine sticking to the argument that 'music isn't what it was back in the day' but it just simply isn't true. You need to let music evolve sometime, otherwise we're stuck in a cyclical situation where views such as that simply serves to inhibit new music to come. What I meant was that jazz (which as someone pointed out is far too much of an umbrella term anyway) doesn't serve as much of a huge sector of musical revenue nowadays because it seems to be viewed by most as an institution or an era, like classical. It may not be the most musically endearing news that practicing jazz musicians want to hear, but it's true.

[quote name='dlloyd' post='481380' date='May 6 2009, 08:25 PM']It's a gross simplification for sure, but the fact is that jazz no longer appealed to the masses. Rock and roll was part of the equation, but obviously wasn't the whole story.[/quote] To a lot of people it didn't stop appealing, at least not at that stage. Jazz didn't simply stop existing when Rock and Roll came about. Sure, rock became far more popular, but it still had it's place amongst the musos and social elite, and in the forms of Frank Sinatra, for example.

[quote]But when rock and roll appeared and people stopped listening to jazz[/quote] That's the biggest mistake of the whole quote. I wouldn't like to think the amounts of bands that have been influenced by jazz, it would hurt my head... somewhere out there Donald Fagan and Walter Becker's ears are respectively burning. Jazz nowadays has had it's day in the sun IMO, and in it's true form serves little to no purpose nowadays aside from entertainment value, but Jazz wasn't just some fad that can be tossed into the back of the books of musical history. In fact, essentially all popular music nowadays has it's roots in jazz and blues, the value og jazz as a genre and an entity is not something that someone can put a price on. Parker, Miles, Coltrane were the J.S Bach's of the 21st century, they just had the rotten luck of being around during the advent of drug abuse. They were just as important.

45 minutes would be fair, but if we're using the bigger P.A then a bit longer. We all know by now not to be leisurely with setting up, especially not at weddings where we're working to a timescale.

Paul Turner I loved on all of the George Michael stuff he played on. Randy Hope Taylor is also a favourite. Pino Palladino, Doug Wimbish, and Laurence Cottle all played on Seal's first and second albums respectively, and there's some great bass on those albums.

Never really bought into the whole guitar/midi thing. I think if you wanted to make your guitar sound like a synth, then buy a synth instead. Maybe that's a bit close-minded of me but all the same...