Modern basses... What an I missing?

[Robert Manning]

[quote name='chris_b' post='1234099' date='May 17 2011, 11:19 AM']Just a view but, looking at your gear, the Stingray is the only bass I'd keep![/quote]

how freaky i just phoned up UCAS confirming a place at Kingston upon Thames uni! haha.

[Wil]

Stingrays are almost like a vintage/modern mishmash. They feel like a more refined Fender, but can sound classic or very modern indeed. Ideal for anything!

[Wolverinebass]

Just depends what you want out of it. Something that sounds distinctive may not be what you want at all if you like a precision type sound, you won't really get it from an active bass. Besides, they won't make you better anyway unless the neck is easier to play. I'd tend to stick to what you like.

You could spend squillions on a bells and whistles bass, but it could prove rather frustrating if it doesn't work for you and you don't get on with it.

[chris_b]

[quote name='Robert Manning' post='1234122' date='May 17 2011, 11:37 AM']....how freaky i just phoned up UCAS confirming a place at Kingston upon Thames uni! haha.....[/quote]
Welcome to Kingston.

[Bilbo]

One of the things that always troubles me about these threaads is the knowledge other people have of the differences in sound between a long list of specific makes: they are all mentioned above. Having played bass for three decades, I can honestly say, I have absolutely no idea what most of these basses 'sound' like. I have no idea what they difference between a Fender Precision and a Jazz, no idea what a Ken Smith sounds like or a Fodera or Kubicki or Overwater or an Alembic etc ....... becasue I have never even [b]seen[/b] one of them let alone played one. The only 'modern' bass I have played is a Roscoe (I was trying out an amp in a shop) which sounded remarkably like a bass. I know Jimmy Johnson plays and Alembic and sounds nothing like Stanley Clarke or Mark King or Phil Lesh etc who also play Alembics. So what does an Alembic sound like? WHere do you guys get the opportunity, never mind the time, to not only play this array of basses but to play them sufficiently long enough to be able to identify the specific idiosyncracies of the instrument makers definitive sound?

At a guess, I think I have played 3 or 4 Wals, a Jazz (mid 80s), an Ibanez Musicman bass (mid 80s), a Yamaha 6 string (mid 80s), a Status Energy 5 and 6 string (mid 90s), a Jaydee (late 80s), a Washburn headless Status type copy (late 80s), an Aria SB700 (1980 - 82) and a Hondo II Precision copy (1980). There may have been a Stingray in there somewhere as well. I think that's it. Oh and a couple of Sei basses at The Gallery. None of them left any impression upon me at all except the Wals (played them in about 1985) which were consistent. Most of these basses I either owned, they belonged to students or I played because I was there and it seemed like a good idea at the time. But to have a definitive opinion on the sound of each? I must have cloth ears

[chris_b]

Lakland basses were designed to be a "modern" take on Fender and Musicman without loosing the qualities of those vintage instruments. I think Lakland have done a great job.

[FayeAutumn]

The only things I would add to this thread are to recommend avoiding any bass that has excessive neck dive as having to fight the instrument to play it isn't any fun (well for me it wasn't) and anything that's so heavy as to cause you back problems. Of course, these are both subjective but worth taking into account.

[JTUK]

Not sure if you know what you want anyway. You seem to have basses to cover a lot of ranges in music and one or two are very focused and almost limiting..not that that in itself is that bad, possibly.. but until you grow into a
style your thinking will not have much shape to it.

A jazz is a workhorse that can cover anything with a bit of imagination.. but you need to really rate it as a bass and just because it has Fender on it doesn't make it any good.

I wouldn't worry about direction until you get some. Maybe your upcoming gig will help ...as hopefully, that is the point.

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='Robert Manning' post='1234086' date='May 17 2011, 11:09 AM']true true... i was also thinking.. i don't own any basses that don't neck dive! [/quote]

The thunderbird doesn't neck dive?


I remember at the Notts bass bash I played some wood and tronics basses and they were great, they played pretty amazing and sounded as if the engineers had designed them to sound as best as a bass can sound. Some would say like a piano.
But its got very little character and im sure in a mix you wouldnt be able to say "hmm sounds like a wood and tronics"

It's for this I prefer stingrays, the characterful sound is very distinguishable in a mix.

[Robert Manning]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' post='1234170' date='May 17 2011, 12:26 PM']The thunderbird doesn't neck dive?


I remember at the Notts bass bash I played some wood and tronics basses and they were great, they played pretty amazing and sounded as if the engineers had designed them to sound as best as a bass can sound. Some would say like a piano.
But its got very little character and im sure in a mix you wouldnt be able to say "hmm sounds like a wood and tronics"

It's for this I prefer stingrays, the characterful sound is very distinguishable in a mix.[/quote]


ah, im playing my thunderbird now.. it actually has no neck dive sitting down. its a usa 1994 i think.. its so much thunn to play.

[4000]

[quote name='RhysP' post='1234111' date='May 17 2011, 11:30 AM']Yeah, thanks Chris & Geddy for making me waste money on a couple of bloody Rickenbackers only to find out they're atrociously made & really uncomfortable to play. [/quote]

Yeah, they're so atrociously made and uncomfortable to play that mine are still my go-tos when Wals, Jaydees, Alembics, Seis, Warwicks, Fenders etc have gone by the by.

My experience with newer & boutique basses is that they've generally been really nicely made, when set up correctly are very easy to play and often sound great. However personally I've always found they sound best either on their own or in a more "polite" musical environment; YMMV. Of all the basses I've owned/tried in my main bands (all of the above and more), the only ones that have really worked are my Ricks and a P Bass. Everything else from Musicman to Wal and beyond never really cut it for me (and my bandmates, many and varied, have agreed).

Ultimately it depends what you want. If you take my old Sei singlecut; I loved that; it was immensely comfortable, great to play and sounded really sweet. But it didn't have what I needed in a band situation, or at least any band situation I was playing in at the time I owned it. Did it make me a btter player? To be honest learning guitar makes me more of a better player than any bass ever did!

Get out there and try as much as you can. I've always tried to get my hands on everything I can bass-wise [i]just in case. [/i]

[Ovo]

Oh you'd like to try some "modern" sound ?
First, try this :

[4000]

[quote name='Bilbo' post='1234151' date='May 17 2011, 12:06 PM']One of the things that always troubles me about these threaads is the knowledge other people have of the differences in sound between a long list of specific makes: they are all mentioned above. Having played bass for three decades, I can honestly say, I have absolutely no idea what most of these basses 'sound' like. I have no idea what they difference between a Fender Precision and a Jazz, no idea what a Ken Smith sounds like or a Fodera or Kubicki or Overwater or an Alembic etc ....... becasue I have never even [b]seen[/b] one of them let alone played one. The only 'modern' bass I have played is a Roscoe (I was trying out an amp in a shop) which sounded remarkably like a bass. I know Jimmy Johnson plays and Alembic and sounds nothing like Stanley Clarke or Mark King or Phil Lesh etc who also play Alembics. So what does an Alembic sound like? WHere do you guys get the opportunity, never mind the time, to not only play this array of basses but to play them sufficiently long enough to be able to identify the specific idiosyncracies of the instrument makers definitive sound?

At a guess, I think I have played 3 or 4 Wals, a Jazz (mid 80s), an Ibanez Musicman bass (mid 80s), a Yamaha 6 string (mid 80s), a Status Energy 5 and 6 string (mid 90s), a Jaydee (late 80s), a Washburn headless Status type copy (late 80s), an Aria SB700 (1980 - 82) and a Hondo II Precision copy (1980). There may have been a Stingray in there somewhere as well. I think that's it. Oh and a couple of Sei basses at The Gallery. None of them left any impression upon me at all except the Wals (played them in about 1985) which were consistent. Most of these basses I either owned, they belonged to students or I played because I was there and it seemed like a good idea at the time. But to have a definitive opinion on the sound of each? I must have cloth ears [/quote]

I think what you've got to remember here is that you don't appear to be every interested in the instrument beyond its use as a tool for creating music. I get the impression that as long as it works ok, then that's game over. "What ketchup do you prefer?" "Doesn't matter, it's all ketchup isn't it?" To some, yes, to others no; gimme Heinz or gimme death .

I've played thousands of basses. Thousands. And will continue to try them. Why? Because I'm interested in the [i]instrument itself[/i]. You could go in Clarks' and buy a perfectly acceptable pair of shoes; for some people that would be enough, but for others they may not quite be what they really want or they may not fit quite right. We're all different and have different needs and expectations.

Having played thousands of basses and having listened to many thousands of recordings I have a good idea what certain basses tend to sound like, mainly because I'm [i]interested[/i] in what they sound like. Of course boundaries can be blurred depending on the player, the rig, the recording etc etc so it's not always straightforward but I certainly have a good idea what many instruments generally sound like when [i]I[/i] play them.

Re your Jimmy Johnson analogy, to me Jimmy sounds like he's playing an Alembic, even though he doesn't sound identical to Stan, who also plays an Alembic. I've owned Alembics and could do either tone, but have never managed to duplicate them on anything else. So to me, they both have an Alembic sound, despite it being apparently different. Instruments can contain many sounds and can be played and eq-d many ways but can still have an inherantly recognisable quality. Chris Squire doesn't sound like Alan Davey but they're both recognisably Rickenbacker to me.

I also don't subscribe to the "a player sounds the same regardless of what bass they're using" nonsense. Mark King on a Jaydee to me sounds different than Mark King on a Status or an Alembic. [i]Some[/i] players sound the same whatever they're using, not all. of course much of this does depend on the grade of cloth your ears are made from.

[Wil]

Tone, for me, is intergral to my musical enjoyment. I relish the aggressive, textured sounds that make my ears prick up and the soft, sonorous ones that slot seamlessly into my lug 'oles like, well, butter. Er...

I love the sound of a P bass or a Stingray in the same way I love the production on a good record, the sound wave is a piece of art in itself with myriad textures and colours before pitch even comes into the equation.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Wil

[Wolverinebass]

[quote name='JTUK' post='1234164' date='May 17 2011, 12:20 PM']Not sure if you know what you want anyway. You seem to have basses to cover a lot of ranges in music and one or two are very focused and almost limiting..not that that in itself is that bad, possibly.. but until you grow into a
style your thinking will not have much shape to it.

A jazz is a workhorse that can cover anything with a bit of imagination.. but you need to really rate it as a bass and just because it has Fender on it doesn't make it any good.

I wouldn't worry about direction until you get some. Maybe your upcoming gig will help ...as hopefully, that is the point.[/quote]

I agree totally. Until you know roughly what you want to sound like, it's a bit difficult to say. I chose the basses I've got as I know exactly what I want to sound like. In truth I probably stumbled into it.

Plus the comment about a Jazz is right on. One of my mates got a Jazz and whilst the sound of passive basses doesn't work that well for me, I thought it was fantastic and very versatile. He then sold it and bought 4 Danelectros. Never did figure out the logic of that.

Billbo's comments about telling the difference between basses is true to an extent, but it's reasonably easy to tell maybe not what make they are (which I think is a bit difficult sometimes), but the different sound when used with the same amp settings.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Wolverinebass

[XylemBassGuitar]

[quote name='Robert Manning' post='1234086' date='May 17 2011, 04:09 AM']true true... i was also thinking.. i don't own any basses that don't neck dive! [/quote]

This is, in my opinion, a major pitfall of many older [i]and[/i] modern basses. I agree that a bass, by itself, won't improve your playing. However, if you have a bass that balances in standing & sitting positions, has the right action for you, offers easy access to the upper registers and is LIGHT (imagine that) you might feel more motivated to practice for longer if your hands/back/shoulders don't fatigue as easily. Those little added bits of comfort can also help you perfect that solo you've been working on for a long time.

If it were me and I really wanted to find a better bass, I would focus less on modern vs. vintage style basses and begin to focus on finding the most playable, comfortable bass for my particular playing style and preferences. You could probably find a couple of vintage basses [i]and[/i] a couple of modern basses that at least come very close to your cosmetic and functional preferences.

[4000]

[quote name='Wolverinebass' post='1234322' date='May 17 2011, 02:13 PM']Plus the comment about a Jazz is right on. One of my mates got a Jazz and whilst the sound of passive basses doesn't work that well for me, I thought it was fantastic and very versatile. He then sold it and bought 4 Danelectros. Never did figure out the logic of that.[/quote]

Maybe he vastly preferred the Danelectros?

I've had 3 Jazzes. I go back to them thinking "they must work really, it was just the last one wasn't right". Sadly they never do. No instrument works for everybody.

[Wil]

Danelectros sounds bloody fantastic, IMO. Never played one though.

[spongebob]

[quote name='RhysP' post='1234111' date='May 17 2011, 11:30 AM']Yeah, thanks Chris & Geddy for making me waste money on a couple of bloody Rickenbackers only to find out they're atrociously made & really uncomfortable to play. [/quote]

Pretty much all my Rics I've owned have had 'individualities'!

My one I have now had a broken pup on receipt, and the repair somehow blew another! It's all good now, but for the vintage tone selector working in reverse on a certain setting! It's odd, but it's my odd Ric!

With ref. to the actual post, my foray into newer basses was a Rickenbacker 4004.

I know they came out in the '90's, but the looks for me put them in the modern category! Owned mine in 2008/9.

I really liked the tone - like a 4003 on steroids! Only thing was the neck - chunky isn't the word....but they have apparently been reduced on the newer ones.

It was the looks which put me off - I must have stared at the 4004 from so many angles, but just couldn't love it. It just looked to me like any old modern bass, all garish colour and no soul.

So it was back to the 4003 and all the issues.....but I wouldn't change it for the world.

[Wolverinebass]

The comment about the Danelectros wasn't that they're rubbish or that I think they are (and I don't). I thought that the ones he got were really nice sounding and for what he paid for them they were massively batting about their price range. I enjoyed "having a go" on them.

However, my comment was about the fact that he then sold his very nice jazz for less than half of what he paid for it and got 4 instruments that sound absolutely identical which I thought was pointless and illogical, hence my comment.

Why have 4 basses that sound absolutely the same? By the time he'd wanged out for all of this lot he could have got himself one very, very nice bass indeed. Just my opinion though. It just seemed like bonkers GAS to me.

[thodrik]

From playing a bunch of really high end bass I have not really found one that played better than my old Precision. There was nothing that I could do technically on a Wal, Sadowsky, Sandberg, Warwick, Vigier, Lakland etc that I couldn't do on my Precision. I have however played many modern basses that naturally 'sounded' a lot better than my Precision, due to the onboard eq. That said, if I fiddled about with the eq on an amp or pre-amp long enough I am sure that I could get my Fender sounding as full as the others, but I would never get the full on modern 'zing' to it.

A good player will get a good sound out of most basses. The benefit of the range of basses available is that it allows the bassist to find a bass that matches their exact specifications and tonal expectations. If this however leads you to a 1970s Fender Jazz bass, then get a 1970s Fender Jazz.

Edited May 18, 2011 by thodrik

[Bilbo]

[quote name='4000' post='1234301' date='May 17 2011, 01:59 PM']I think what you've got to remember here is that you don't appear to be every interested in the instrument beyond its use as a tool for creating music. I get the impression that as long as it works ok, then that's game over. "What ketchup do you prefer?" "Doesn't matter, it's all ketchup isn't it?" To some, yes, to others no; gimme Heinz or gimme death .[/quote]

Makes sense.