EssentialTension

[quote name='BigGuyAtTheBack' timestamp='1401376678' post='2462991'] Spent 20 years looking for the 'right' tone, discovered a plectrum was all I needed! [/quote] So, it's not all in the fingers after all?

[quote name='dave_bass5' timestamp='1401364717' post='2462812'] Wonder why so many people have multiple basses if its not worth spending more than a few mins getting a good tone. Maybe its not worth spending the time, but worth sending them money ;-) [/quote] This is a very good point and the same might apply to multiple amps etc too. However, I don't quite understand why it would take any more than a few minutes to get a good tone and if it did I would think there was either something wrong with the equipment or something wrong with me. It's not that it's not worth spending more than a few minutes; it's that it really should only take a few minutes. Anyway, speaking for myself I could quite adequately play in any band I have ever been in with one Precision Bass, or one Jazz Bass or similar, or one probably not even very similar at all. It would still work. But despite multiple basses being not really necessary I do like to have different kinds if I am going to have more than one so: Upright bass Large bodied electro-acoustic fretless Solid body electric fretted (I have two of these and can give no good excuse - I should be horse-whipped) Bass VI tic-tac/surf bass They all sound disappointingly the same when I play them.

[quote name='GCYPbass' timestamp='1401372696' post='2462925'] I beleive it is one of the 34" scale ones. I think the Urge 1 models are 32" scale but I may be wrong. [/quote] Ah, that's right I think. I payed a 32" years ago it seemed very fast - if you see what I mean. What colour?

It won't make you rich but as an unusual but nice (in my view) Fender it's unlikely to lose you much either. Is it the 32" scale or 34" scale.

[quote name='yann' timestamp='1401364215' post='2462809'] There's a Greek word that explains it: "Anadrasis". I can only translate this as "interaction" or something... [/quote] [i]Anadrasis[/i] = running back so feeding back and so interaction? Does that sound correct? I've no dispute, I think like most non-believers as you call us, that a different piece of wood might at least in principle sound different from some other piece of wood; and might also sound different from perspex or aluminium or whatever material, even hollow wood rather than solid wood. Nor any issue with the idea that there might be some interaction, some feedback between wood and the rest of an electric instrument. What I and I'm sure others remain unconvinced by is the idea that a particular species of wood can be established as a so-called tonewood. Even insofar as a particular species of wood might be generally or commonly be associated with a point on some continuum between 'bright' and 'dark' (or some other difficultly measurable aesthetic judgement), any particular sample of that species might or might not display the characteristics commonly associated with said species. But anyway, even if we allow that some individual pieces of wood might be tonally different to other individual pieces of wood - which I think few people would strongly deny - there is a long list of factors which will have much greater influence over tone than will the wood: strings, foam or whatever under the strings, pickups, fingers, plectrum, where your hand is when you hit the strings, the manner in which you hit the strings, scale length, setup of neck and bridge, EQ on the bass, effects pedals, amplification, speakers, interaction (that's [i]anadrasis[/i]) with the rest of the band and the room, etc. etc. .... ... and of course that's how this thread got started: [quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1263247258' post='709467'] I think this is the right forum for this one... I've always thought that the wood(s) used to make a bass (or guitar for that matter) are a critical element in determining how it will sound, and that time spent selecting the woods for a high-end instrument build is time well spent as it provides a 'uniqueness' to the sound. However I recently had a fascinating conversation with a respected specialist builder on another forum, to the effect that whilst high quality woods are an important element in producing a high quality instrument, the actual choice of wood is less of a factor in determining the specifics of the sound than I had supposed, and that other factors such as pickup/preamp choice, string choice and setup are at least as important (if not more so). The implications of this are fairly substantial IMHO, because if true it means that in selecting tonewoods a customer is exerting less influence on how the instrument will sound (and probably more on how it looks) than he/she might believe. I'm aware that I may be stirring a bit of a hornet's nest in asking this, but I'm considering having a bass built for me (although the same basic considerations would surely apply to off-the-shelf instruments) and I really would like to know what people think. [/quote]

[quote name='yann' timestamp='1401364215' post='2462809'] ... wood matters in electric sound ... [/quote] You need to start with a full clarification of what that phrase, that claim, actually means.

[quote name='yann' timestamp='1401347364' post='2462579'] Sorry,you're both (and all others who support this) wrong... There are so many practical examples around that appear daily since the making of the very first electric instrument! (The question: "Does wood affect electric sound" is been answered since the 60s,i don't see the reason it's still discussed... ...) [/quote] Not a convincing argument.

Entwistle playing, I believe, the same bass but much clearer sound here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYIZfb6KFsk

Taylor with flats and Entwistle with rounds? What do you think?

Monterey again, John Entwistle with The Who playing a white Precision, is it a slab? Clear shot at 15.33 looks slabbish. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWU9nNT1oUQ[/media]

Larry Taylor with Canned Heat playing a black slab-bodied maple-board Precision at Monterey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vFOqp-BeJk

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1401267647' post='2461743'] (Yes, I'm over 40 years old) [/quote] Yes, I'm over 60 so I've asked my over 20 son for his opinion.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1401305502' post='2462329'] Music for people who don't like music is a huge market. Also see: stupidly big cars for people who can't drive; best-selling novels for people who can't read and a plethora of similar 'luxury goods' for discerning consumers [size=4]who don't know their arses from a hole in the ground. Ooh, I'm grumpy today all right![/size] [/quote] ... you forgot best-selling novels by people who can't write ...

I had not heard this or even heard of this. I have heard the name Pharrell but had no idea who or what it was. It turns out it's inoffensive but drivelling who-cares-music for people who don't actually like music, IMHO. On YouTube the preceding advert was better and I skipped that.

Yes, waste of time, better to concentrate on playing. This is especially true if you are playing on your own. Tone-fiddling can make you go blind ... or was it deaf?

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1401061888' post='2459740'] I can also confirm that Amy Winehouse's band used to get paid a pittance per night, roughly £250-£500 each, if they were lucky that is. I know of pub bands who play her songs that get paid more than that each. [/quote] Which pubs are those?

[quote name='Green Alsatian' timestamp='1401214075' post='2461335'] The term 'Telecaster Bass' in the context of the slab Precision, according to Barry Matthews' book 'Fender Bass for Britain: The History of the 1966 Slab-Bodied Precision Bass', came from Arbiter, who imported Fenders at the time. On page 9 of the book, there is a print of the 'Instrumental News' page from an issue of 'Beat Instrumental' harking from July 1966 and it features an article, titled 'New Telecaster Bass'. It reads: [i]Arbiter announce that they are now handling a new Fender bass. It costs 147 gns and has a Telecaster type body. Interest has been shown in it by many top group bassmen.[/i] The author's comment at the foot of the page states that this is the only advert that ever appeared for the slab Precision. It's likely that on reading about the slab's body, Arbiter assumed it was a new model and not just a unique run of Precisions. [/quote] I haven't read any of the books so thanks for that. To me, that sounds like Arbiter saying '[i]Telecaster type body'[/i] (meaning slab body) and then a sub-editor at Beat Instrumental writing the headline 'New Telecaster Bass' because they don't know what '[i]Telecaster type body'[/i] means[i].[/i]

I'm a big fan but I'm very poor at it myself. My son plays some banjo in his gypsy-folk-dub band Euphony. He's got an Ozark of some kind with a closed back.

[quote name='Rick's Fine '52' timestamp='1401200373' post='2461061'] I doubt it, he got exactly what he wanted. If he wanted a telecaster bass, then he would have asked for a reissue of the original single coil P-Bass from '51-'54, that would have been far easier to have described and requested. In fact, in '66, he probably could have bought one of those for less than the price of a new custom order Precision. [/quote] I get your point but in '66, the '51-'54 Precision was called ... er ... a Precision Bass and there were no Telecaster Basses until '68 when the '51 Precision was renamed and reissued. So if he did want a bass based (no pun intended) on the Telecaster guitar it should have been a single cut with two single-coil pickups and Telecaster Bass on the headstock. But he got a slab-bodied Precision Bass instead.

A piece of felt is another good one.

[quote name='Meddle' timestamp='1401137324' post='2460530'] Apparently some guy went into the shop in London, in 1966, and asked for a special [i]Fender Telecaster[/i] bass to be made by Fender. When word got to the Fender plant they set about making a Precision bass that matched the aesthetics of the '50s Telecaster guitars, hence the colour of the finish, the lack of contours, the maple neck and the black pickguard. To all intents and purposes it is a Precision bass with some aesthetic changes. The biggie, that makes the sonic difference, is the construction of the maple neck. The electronics are regular P-bass fare, and there is nothing special going on with the output of the pickups or anything. [/quote] OK, thanks for the explanation but I still don't quite get it because "the lack of contours, the maple neck and the black pickguard" are all typical of an early '50s Precision bass just as much as a Telecaster guitar. As for the colour of the finish, surely that's just a custom colour, as you say "aesthetic change", in the normal way. In fact there is nothing about it which could not be considered Precision bass in one way or another; which is probably why it's always been known as a Precision bass. Still, like I said, people can call it what they want.

I would walk well away from that. Too many queries for that price.

Many years ago I used to spend ages messing with EQ. Now I rarely bother and do my best to avoid EQ fiddling. Instead, play in a different manner, move my right hand, neckwards or bridgewards. Play more lightly and turn the volume up or play harder and turn the volume down.

Sponge from under pickups, screwed up tissues, bit of old cotton cloth or velvet, mouse mat - try different things til you get the sound you want.

[quote name='slab66' timestamp='1400945327' post='2458434'] I guess we could settle on Telecaster/Precision hybrid! That's what I call mine. Best of both worlds. [/quote] Well, like I said, you can of course call it what you like, but I'm just interested to know why anyone would think it would attract the name Telecaster. I really don't want to pay £30 to read that book to find out.