Tone, were they as bothered about it as us?

[4000]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1249604' date='May 29 2011, 08:22 PM']To me,watching those clips I hear the Carl Thompson as being a little more midrange heavy and a bit less toppy
than the Ric,but the sound is still recognisably Claypool.
Your friend can't tell the difference between your two Rics? That doesn't surprise me at all.[/quote]

No, the [i]playing[/i] is recognisably Claypool. If the sound seems pretty much the same to you then your ears aren't as good as I expected them to be. Or more likely you're listening to it in the same way that someone listens to a musical genre that they're not really intimate with or interested in; "metal/rap/pop? It all sounds pretty much the same" etc. I note you haven't answered the Entwistle question yet. If your ears can't tell the difference there, then I suspect its because you don't want them to.

It does surprise me, as to me he sounded [i]very[/i] different on each one, but then I know his ears aren't as good as mine (even though mine aren't as good as they used to be), or certainly weren't at the time. As stated before, everyone in my band can tell the difference when I play any of my basses. I've even been asked not to use certain basses in favour of others. Our guitarist didn't like me using my old 4001CS because he didn't like the sound of it. Our singer loved my old 4000 and likes the others far less. My Statii were met with general disapproval. When I used a Musicman everyone said they didn't like the sound in the context of the band; I agreed. When I used a P everyone loved the sound in the context of the band; I liked it but not as much. So obviously they do sound different, and not just to me. Many of the players I've known have said the same thing, so it's not just me.

FWIW our guitarist's Strats sound noticeably different too, both to him and to me. He still plays the same when playing them, but that isn't the point. In addition, some people when handed a different instrument play differently. I didn't play the same things on my Seis or Alembics as I do on my Rics, because the sonics of the instruments didn't support the same kind of things.

Edited May 29, 2011 by 4000

[4000]

[quote name='jonsmith' post='1249633' date='May 29 2011, 08:48 PM']Especially as the CS is virtually identical to the V63.[/quote]

Not true. I've had 2 CSs (vermilion board) and 1 V63 (rosewood board) and have played several more CSs and several more V63s. The CSs haven't sounded the same as the V63s at all. None of them. The V63s have sounded different individually, as have the CSs, but all of the CSs have sounded more like each other, as have the V63s. Again, if someone can't tell the difference then their ears just aren't that great or they're not really listening.

[jonsmith]

[quote name='4000' post='1249751' date='May 29 2011, 10:44 PM']Not true. I've had 2 CSs (vermilion board) and 1 V63 (rosewood board) and have played several more CSs and several more V63s. The CSs haven't sounded the same as the V63s at all. None of them. The V63s have sounded different individually, as have the CSs, but all of the CSs have sounded more like each other, as have the V63s. Again, if someone can't tell the difference then their ears just aren't that great or they're not really listening.[/quote]

The CS is basically a V63 with a vermillion (itself a type of rosewood*) board, so I still maintain it is almost the same. However mine does sound different to my other Ricks (and they have all sounded different to each other anyway, even supposedly identical ones).

*EDIT FOR CORRECTION: Actually not a genuine rosewood, but sold as Papua New Guinea rosewood (should have looked it up before I posted!)

Edited May 29, 2011 by jonsmith

[Doddy]

[quote name='4000' post='1249748' date='May 29 2011, 10:41 PM']No, the [i]playing[/i] is recognisably Claypool. If the sound seems pretty much the same to you then your ears aren't as good as I expected them to be. Or more likely you're listening to it in the same way that someone listens to a musical genre that they're not really intimate with or interested in; "metal/rap/pop? It all sounds pretty much the same" etc. I note you haven't answered the Entwistle question yet. If your ears can't tell the difference there, then I suspect its because you don't want them to.[/quote]

I haven't answered the Entwistle question because I'm neither a fan of
his or The Who in general and don't really want to listen to various eras of his playing.

But I will disagree about how I'm listening to the music. While the playing is recognisably Claypool,so is the sound he produces,regardless of the instrument. No matter what bass he is playing,he has a recognisable sound as well as style. There is no way I could listen to anything he has done and say 'Oh yeah,that's a (whatever) bass',but I can recognise his sound a mile off.

[dc2009]

I personally think any [s]bass player[/s] musician worth their salt will nowadays spend as long as they can getting their tone right before recording a note in the studio. I think the instrument should initially be set up to sound right on it's own, then tweaked with the help of the sound engineer and the surrounding band to get it sound right in the band mix. With the plethora of gear available for all instruments these days, any player has a vast range of choices, budget permitting.

Back in the day, when choices were limited, and styles were, well, more traditional, I think the whole thing mattered less, and I think the bass player, among other musicians in the group would rely on the engineer to mix everything as ideally as possible from the sounds they recorded with their Fender P/J and standard old tube amp.

And @the guy above (sorry forgot your username): Your band didn't like the sound of statuses? Were they the graphite or wooden ones?

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1249779' date='May 29 2011, 11:14 PM']But I will disagree about how I'm listening to the music. While the playing is recognisably Claypool,so is the sound he produces,regardless of the instrument. No matter what bass he is playing,he has a recognisable sound as well as style. There is no way I could listen to anything he has done and say 'Oh yeah,that's a (whatever) bass',but I can recognise his sound a mile off.[/quote]

Doddy, I don't really understand where you're coming from now. Are you honestly saying you think all basses sound the same with a given player? And/or that if you heard a set of single notes, each distinct in isolation rather than a continuous riff, that you'd actually recognise they were all played by Les Claypool?! Surely this is just a matter of what you're calling 'tone'.

[Doddy]

[quote name='LawrenceH' post='1249788' date='May 29 2011, 11:20 PM']Doddy, I don't really understand where you're coming from now. Are you honestly saying you think all basses sound the same with a given player? And/or that if you heard a set of single notes, each distinct in isolation rather than a continuous riff, that you'd actually recognise they were all played by Les Claypool?! Surely this is just a matter of what you're calling 'tone'.[/quote]

I'm not saying that all basses sound the same with a particular player,but that a player has a certain sound that they bring out of an instrument. Like I said about the two Claypool videos,the Carl Thompson was slightly more midrange-y that the Rickenbacker,but there was still a similarity in the sound that was produced that was uniquely Claypool.

[LawrenceH]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1249795' date='May 29 2011, 11:34 PM']I'm not saying that all basses sound the same with a particular player,but that a player has a certain sound that they bring out of an instrument. Like I said about the two Claypool videos,the Carl Thompson was slightly more midrange-y that the Rickenbacker,but there was still a similarity in the sound that was produced that was uniquely Claypool.[/quote]

Fair enough, although the difference to me between the two basses is not slight. But I wouldn't call the sound 'unique'. I do think a player with versatile and competent technique can usually emulate the portion of the sound a particular player brings fairly convincingly. I can't play like Claypool (and don't want to either, not really a fan), but I can string a couple of notes together using a touch like his on the right part of the bass that'd sound pretty damn similar, and I'm quite rubbish in the grand scheme of things.
A studio mix can mask the differences between different basses with a mix of compression and EQ, but a raw jazz bass sounds like a jazz bass etc. My old Ibby SR500 was so far away from where I wanted to be tonally that I'd break my fingers raw trying to get there, and still fail. With my jazzes, it's effortless.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='dc2009' post='1249781' date='May 29 2011, 11:16 PM']I personally think any [s]bass player[/s] musician worth their salt will nowadays spend as long as they can getting their tone right before recording a note in the studio. ....[/quote]
So, for any musician worth their salt that would need about five minutes?

Edited May 30, 2011 by EssentialTension

[dc2009]

[quote name='EssentialTension' post='1249946' date='May 30 2011, 09:53 AM']So, for any musician worth their salt that would need about five minutes?[/quote]
Not if youre recording an album IMO, and especially not if you are using different effects and playing styles.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='silentbob' post='1249650' date='May 29 2011, 09:02 PM']The point i was trying to make in the op was did the original musician really have to chase their sound, and spend hours trying different bass/amp/pedal combinations to get it exactly how they envisioned it, or was it just the sound that came out of the equipment they were using at the time and it was a case of "yup. that'll do".[/quote]
I think it depends how far back you go. If we're talking about the 50's then it was very much a case of turn up and plug in. At that time, you had a limited choice of low-powered amps and no dedicated bass effects whatever. (Apart from the foam rubber mute). Pretty much the same through the 60's and 70's 'Golden Age'.

Nowadays, there is a cornucopia of tone shaping devices and amps with differing 'core sounds'. Do audiences dance any harder than they did in 1958 / 68 /78? Does the punter notice the difference between a Ampeg B-15, an Acoustic Control or the latest amp du jour? Nah. It's all in our own ears. Which - as we're paying for it - is just handy-dandy as long as we accept the law of diminishing returns.

[ZMech]

I think once you get past the stage of sounding like a bunch of teenagers in a shed, and work out how to get your instruments to fit in well with each other, then your audience won't notice much improvement above that (or not consciously at least). Some bands I do reckon spend ages tweaking, one example that jumps to mind is tame impala

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxvf7gR4-2M"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxvf7gR4-2M[/url]

p.s. if I had the money and time I would no doubt spend ages playing with various effects and combinations, but mostly as i'm a massive geek

Edited May 30, 2011 by ZMech

[Ross]

Some people care, some don't. There are examples of good and bad sounds from both ends of the spectrum.

I don't spend hours on it, occasionally I think "oh I wouldn't mind a bit more punch" or "that'd sound good with flats", my main interest is in playing.

[slobluesine]

this from another forum in reply to members commenting on great tone...

"The show was a bit of a ball-ache as It was a hire Bass provided just for that gig, I was supposed to have had it a few days to adjust etc but it only arrived 4 hours before the gig, It was a pretty piss-poor Bass too, this is why I'm not certain of what I was using, I haven't seen it all yet, I must say thankyou for the comments on my tone but on this occasion I think it was the soundguys that were to thank"

great tone sometimes has NOTHING to do with the guy who's playing, or his gear

[SteveK]

[quote name='silentbob' post='1248305' date='May 28 2011, 03:17 PM']Any thoughts?[/quote]
Yeah, I think there is an unhealthy fixation with [i]getting this bass, getting that rig[/i] trying every conceivable combination in the search for "that sound", when, in most cases, the player would do better looking closer to home.
Yer Palladino's and Di Piazza's etc are quite happy to turn up and plug into anything available...me too!

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='dc2009' post='1249960' date='May 30 2011, 10:10 AM']Not if youre recording an album IMO, and especially not if you are using different effects and playing styles.[/quote]
So, that's still about five minutes isn't it as long as you are prepared.

[slobluesine]

[quote name='SteveK' post='1250210' date='May 30 2011, 12:59 PM']Yeah, I think there is an unhealthy fixation with [i]getting this bass, getting that rig[/i] trying every conceivable combination in the search for "that sound", when, in most cases, the player would do better looking closer to home.
Yer Palladino's and Di Piazza's etc are quite happy to turn up and plug into anything available...me too![/quote]

+1 way too many players constantly 'listen' to themselves instead of 'playing'

[lowdown]

[quote name='SteveK' post='1250210' date='May 30 2011, 12:59 PM']Yeah, I think there is an unhealthy fixation with [i]getting this bass, getting that rig[/i] trying every conceivable combination in the search for "that sound", when, in most cases, the player would do better looking closer to home.
Yer Palladino's and Di Piazza's etc are quite happy to turn up and plug into anything available...me too![/quote]


Another +1
Reading through the thread there seems to be a bit of a Spinal Tap going down.



Garry

[Jazzneck]

[quote name='slobluesine' post='1250252' date='May 30 2011, 01:33 PM']+1 way too many players constantly 'listen' to themselves instead of 'playing'[/quote]

+1 to that too.

In addition, can anyone explain to me how you can control your own sound when you play a big stage/festival and the sound guys want you to DI straight into the mixing board?

I've played a fair few using SVT + 8x10 as a backline and the sound guys still wanted me to DI instead of miking the cab which was "my sound". The problem I "suffer" is that the modern sound guys want to make me sound as if I'm playing a clangy piano with plenty of click and string noise whereas I want pure Chess/Stax tuneful thump.

The only diplomatic way of winning I have found, so far, is to take my Sansamp Bass Driver which I set myself and insist on the sound man as using this as my DI source. A few pints to the crew also helps tremendously!

The big problem is that you can't play and hear yourself in the middle of the auditorium simultaneously so you have to trust people - good job the harp player and our full time sound man knew what was wanted and could gently guide the house crew to what was needed for the me and the band rather than letting 'em run riot with modern technology.

The studio is a different issue - I use my own rig miked with a bit of compression and threaten any engineer/producer (politely) with a painful death if he touches anything except his mixer.

[thisnameistaken]

[quote name='slobluesine' post='1250252' date='May 30 2011, 01:33 PM']+1 way too many players constantly 'listen' to themselves instead of 'playing'[/quote]

Bit O/T but way too many players listen to themselves instead of everybody else. The amount of times I've stopped a band in rehearsals to point out something that needs changing and everybody else has said 'I thought it sounded alright...'. Just not listening!

[Lozz196]

[quote name='Jazzneck' post='1250301' date='May 30 2011, 02:09 PM']+1 to that too.

The problem I "suffer" is that the modern sound guys want to make me sound as if I'm playing a clangy piano with plenty of click and string noise whereas I want pure Chess/Stax tuneful thump. [/quote]

And they usually use the "definition" word to substantiate this. I`m the same, if I wanted twangy-sounds, I`d be a guitarist and use a Telecaster.

Aaaarrrrgggghhhhhh.

[dc2009]

[quote name='EssentialTension' post='1250215' date='May 30 2011, 01:02 PM']So, that's still about five minutes isn't it as long as you are prepared.[/quote]

More like best part of an hour if you're going to adjust it to sound right in the room environment, microphone placement, getting it sound right by itself and then in the band context. Plenty of bands spend days just sorting out the right basic sounds.

[spongebob]

If your playing a pub/club with soggy carpet and flat beer, you can fiddle with the tone as much as you like, and it's still 'bass'!

I think only bass players actually listen to what we do. Others probably just look at the headstock!

[wez]

years ago when we were recording our guitarist would have his 3 guitars, effects unit, miked up amp etc and spend most of the recording time fiddling for his sound, overlaying, delaying and all manner of techie things. It was the same thing at gigs, but it never sounded any different to me. I try for one sound that will cover most stuff i play as i figured out years back that the sound in my head was not the one coming out the cab. still its nice to play with lots of equipment!!

[4000]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1249779' date='May 29 2011, 11:14 PM']I haven't answered the Entwistle question because I'm neither a fan of
his or The Who in general and don't really want to listen to various eras of his playing.

But I will disagree about how I'm listening to the music. While the playing is recognisably Claypool,so is the sound he produces,regardless of the instrument. No matter what bass he is playing,he has a recognisable sound as well as style. There is no way I could listen to anything he has done and say 'Oh yeah,that's a (whatever) bass',but I can recognise his sound a mile off.[/quote]

The first is rather convenient in terms of not countering my argument. "ah one, two, step to the side..."

The 2nd, hmm. Let's see what Mr Gwizdala has to say about it shall we? I'll direct you to Bass Guitar Magazine July 2009, page 23, 2nd column; article by Nick Wells. He says he plays a Fodera because "it doesn't colour the tone and it allows me to have my own sound rather than having a distinctive Warwick or Yamaha sound". He goes on to say "I am a P-Bass player, you know, 50% of the time because I want to have that kind of sound". Surely if he sounded the same on everything neither of those statements would make sense?

To move this away from sonics for a moment, I think what you're effectively trying to say is that the colour is recognisable as green regardless of what shade it is. In a sense you are of course correct. However I feel you're also implying that the shade is therefore irrelevant, that there is therefore no real difference between the shades, which is simply not the case. As a painter that's something I can argue quite categorically. My argument was about sonics, not about style, and I still maintain that the sonics are different, just as Emerald and Viridian are not the same, despite both being green.

Edited May 30, 2011 by 4000