Gear vs Playing

[markstuk]

I oscillate between being a bit of a bass gear whore and a bit of a keyboards gear whore :-)

I think most people like playing nice instruments, through an amp that is reliable, flexible, and does not weigh a ton... Inverted gear whoredom is still whoredom IMHO... "I play my one string bass made of driftwood, with a rusty nail and horseshoe magnet pickup, strung with baler twine through a 1956 3W radiogram and it still sounds better using my fingers than all your modern rubbish" ... (Irony mode off)


[quote name='Dave Vader' post='1370670' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:24 PM']yes it is, I am a whore for guitars. Have a look at the crap on that there gear tab sir.
(I do own 4 basses, need backups, 2 fretted, 2 fretless)

EDIT: Oh my that page is old... but there's that P copy there, got rid of the one other bass I owned at the time, cos I only needed the P copy.[/quote]

Edited September 12, 2011 by markstuk

[gjones]

If your 'new' good gear is easier to play well on and sounds better to your ear, it can also be inspiring to you and bring back the joy and fun of playing that may have been lost. I've noticed this happening with other players and I've certainly found this to be the case with me. It also allows you to try a variety of basses and amps and eventually figure out which are the best ones for your needs. I've come to the conclusion that I could easily get away with playing my precision and my old Ashdown for the rest of my days and be quite content doing it. But I had to buy and sell an awful lot of amps and basses to figure that out.
As far as people buying themselves, for instance, a £3000 Wal when they'll very rarely play it beyond thier own living room are concerned. It may seem excessive to pro players who perform regularly with more standard instruments but if you can afford it and it gives you pleasure.......why not? I have a friend who is an authority on electric guitars and has a collection of about 20 (including some vintage 60's Fenders worth thousands). Although he can play he chooses not to. He's by no means rich but it gives him pleasure so good luck to him.

Edited September 12, 2011 by gjones

[JellyKnees]

Good gear will not make a bad player sound any better.

A good player will be able to get an ok sound out of almost anything, but will definitely sound better when playing a decent instrument. You just can't get subtlety and nuance out of a cheapo plank of wood with crappy pickups.

I agree that there is a limit beyond which the gains to be had by spending more money become smaller, but a good quality instrument definitely helps in ones develoment as a player.

I got my handmade bass when I was 23 (I'm now 45) and I think it has helped my playing enormously down the years - by far the best £800 I ever spent. Maybe I was just incredibly lucky and found a great bass that worked for me, but I've never had any desire to change it either.

[risingson]

Gear is nice, but ultimately replaceable. Being a talented, skilled musician is indispensable. It's a no brainer as to which one is more important.

I understand why gear is appealing though, in the same way that cars are appealing to me even though I'm never going to be a racing driver. It's not up to anyone else to decide what kind of bass or amp you buy, just as long as the person isn't duping themselves into believing that new gear can somehow supplement talent then I don't see a real problem. There are plenty of people out there who don't use sites like these because they're not interested in talking about gear but are great players who sound great too.

[quote name='dc2009' post='1370556' date='Sep 12 2011, 03:27 PM']IMO that was relevant when the bass track you laid down was recorded through a tin can, copied onto a terrible music format and played through a crap hi-fi. These days, where everyone has access to some seriously high quality audio, and many like myself invest hundreds of pounds in precision engineered devices to listen to it through, if the bassist was playing on a rusty stringed piece of crap through a cardboard box amp, with all of the 'feel' in the world, it'd sound like crap and you'd laugh at the record, let alone ever buy it. Therefore I think that statement is completely irrelevant to today's world.[/quote]

It depends what you're aiming for though. Not everyone wants to hear cleanliness and evidential proof of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of hardware/software behind a track. Maybe that's why Jamerson's comments are more important than ever in fact, I feel very strongly that popular music has lost its way in this respect. Motown was a production line, but it was a production line with soul and humanity behind it, but the likes of Lady Gaga (IMO I should stress) have bastardised this legacy.

[davey_one_visits]

[quote name='Doddy' post='1370466' date='Sep 12 2011, 02:17 PM']I've noticed a couple of posts lately which,to me,give the impression that there are some
people who feel that gear is an important part of improvement as a player or more
important than the player themselves. It's not just limited to this site or bass players in
general...I've seen it with a lot of drummers and guitar players too.

I love gear as much as anyone but I feel that the gear is somewhat secondary to the
player and that everyone would benefit so much more from spending money and time
on lessons and practice rather than spending thousands on gear.

I understand that some people are collectors of instruments but I'm guessing that the
vast majority of people on here are more than that.[/quote]

Spot on.

I've not been on here long but I have noticed a huge interest in gear and little interest in self improvement. It seems that the theory and technique section sometimes goes for ages without being touched. I'm always on the look out for worthwhile information being posted but have to trawl through pages of people showing off the gear they own or want to own. I own some nice stuff myself but I don't feel the need to discuss it on here at all.

Each to their own I guess but materialism is a bad thing in my opinion.

[markstuk]

See highlights below.. Materialism is materialism whether you discuss it or not surely?


[quote name='davey_one_visits' post='1370744' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:55 PM']Spot on.

I've not been on here long but I have noticed a huge interest in gear and little interest in self improvement. It seems that the theory and technique section sometimes goes for ages without being touched. I'm always on the look out for worthwhile information being posted but have to trawl through pages of people showing off the gear they own or want to own. [color="#FF0000"]I own some nice stuff myself[/color] but I don't feel the need to discuss it on here at all.

Each to their own I guess [color="#FF0000"]but materialism is a bad thing [/color]in my opinion.[/quote]

[Mykesbass]

[quote name='4000' post='1370619' date='Sep 12 2011, 03:58 PM']Except in my case it's about making [i]me[/i] happy as I write, record and play for myself first and foremost ... [/quote]

And fair play to you for being that way. I'm personally probably not of an artistic enough bent to appreciate that aspect of it - I'm more of a bit of an old tart of a performer (think Bruce Forsythe rather than Van Gogh)! Both as valid in my book and far more important than the gear etc.

[derrenleepoole]

Reading and partaking in this thread has made me realise a few things. All of my basses have all been under £300 to buy, with the exception of the NS Wav EUB. After a lot of money spent on cheap to average gear, and many experiments, modding etc... I've finally found my preferred tone and style of of bass. For me, it's a jazz bass at 30" scale. To get here though, even though I've only had moderately cheap gear, I've still spent a small fortune.

I'm now in a position where I'm seriously thinking about making an investment in a bass that takes me up to the next level. Even though I'm happy with what I currently have, the decision to do this is three fold: because I want too, and because I've earned it, because I'll appreciate it. I'm glad that it's taken me this long to get here though, as the journey would of been far more expensive if it hadn't

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='davey_one_visits' post='1370744' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:55 PM']I've not been on here long but I have noticed a huge interest in gear and little interest in self improvement.[/quote]
That's not to say self-improvement isn't happening. It's just that, to most people, talking about gear is more fun.

[risingson]

[quote name='derrenleepoole' post='1370762' date='Sep 12 2011, 05:06 PM']I'm now in a position where I'm seriously thinking about making an investment in a bass that takes me up to the next level. [b]Even though I'm happy with what I currently have[/b], the decision to do this is three fold: because I want too, and because I've earned it, because I'll appreciate it. I'm glad that it's taken me this long to get here though, as the journey would of been far more expensive if it hadn't [/quote]

You have every reason to invest in whatever bass you want, but I don't see the point if you're happy with what you've got. What I've learned in the 10 years playing is that the quest for gear is pretty futile, especially if you're happy with what you've got, regardless of price. This 'step' system of moving up a price-level as you progress as a player is misleading as it would suggest that the level of your progression should somehow dictate what instrument you play. The reality is that it doesn't matter, all manner of players play all kinds of gear.

[davey_one_visits]

[quote name='markstuk' post='1370755' date='Sep 12 2011, 05:02 PM']See highlights below.. Materialism is materialism whether you discuss it or not surely? [/quote]

Yes very clever but if I didn't own a bass I wouldn't be on here at all would I?

[icastle]

[quote name='4000' post='1370632' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:06 PM']Ah, but I don't think that actually matters. If it interests them to do so I understand it completely. As I stated above, although it's nice for people to hear my songs I write & record them to satisfy something in myself, not to entertain others.[/quote]

I guess it kinda depends which angle you come at it from.
From a 'performer' point of view it seems totally odd to me, but from a 'non performer' point of view it probably doesn't seem too bad.

[Paul S]

[quote name='davey_one_visits' post='1370744' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:55 PM']Spot on.

I've not been on here long but I have noticed a huge interest in gear and little interest in self improvement. It seems that the theory and technique section sometimes goes for ages without being touched. I'm always on the look out for worthwhile information being posted but have to trawl through pages of people showing off the gear they own or want to own. I own some nice stuff myself but I don't feel the need to discuss it on here at all.

Each to their own I guess but materialism is a bad thing in my opinion.[/quote]

Now maybe I am in a minority here but I am not interested in theory or technique per se. I don't know my arpeggios from my elbow. Self-improvement, yes - I improve by continually playing what I already play and learning new things to play. That does me just fine. I'm never going to set the world on fire, just a pub-gig player that enjoys himself.

But I do think I learn a lot about the wider aspects of bass playing from owning and trying different basses. Nothing to do with my playing ability, just about the instruments - how to use them, different sounds, what suits me and what doesn't. The first 'proper' bass I had weighed a ton and had a neck like a floorboard. I subsequently discover that I prefer playing lighter, skinny necked basses but until I tried one didn't know. Same could be said for amps/cabs, effects, even straps, picks, cables. I like to read others' opinions about their gear as it helps me to filter out stuff I am unlikely to be interested in, herds me in the right direction. For me the two areas are not really related - (edit - or mutually exclusive) I don't buy or try gear to get better, I do it just because it interests me.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Paul S

[dc2009]

[quote name='risingson' post='1370724' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:46 PM']It depends what you're aiming for though. Not everyone wants to hear cleanliness and evidential proof of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of hardware/software behind a track. Maybe that's why Jamerson's comments are more important than ever in fact, I feel very strongly that popular music has lost its way in this respect. Motown was a production line, but it was a production line with soul and humanity behind it, but the likes of Lady Gaga (IMO I should stress) have bastardised this legacy.[/quote]
motown's soul and humanity is dubious, I swear half the time those terms are use to describe that music it's due to nostalgia and listener's preference, not any factual basis
Whilst a lot of modern pop is poor musically, Lady Gaga's stuff is some of the best. Some really well written songs (from a musical standpoint), she's actually a big iron maiden fan etc
If a modern band doesn't sound good production wise, I'd be the first to say why not? The audio quality should augment the listener's experience, not hinder it (IMO of course). What do I think sounds good production wise? I like stadium arcadium and for the more extreme stuff, Gorod's Process of a New Decline. These records have had lots of care and money spent on the instruments, recording equipment and production to final sound, something jamerson clearly didn't care for and something (again IMO ofc) I think his music suffers for in comparison to the two I just mentioned.

[markstuk]

Hardly very clever to point out the contradiction in your post when you said that a) you have nice gear and -b- materialism is a bad thing. (Irony mode on) we all individually apparently have appropriate gear it's just the other clowns who have gear that is beyond their ability to appreciate, and they'd be better off spending their money on lessons, or new ears, self improvement/pleasuring or whatever.... (Irony mode off)..



[quote name='davey_one_visits' post='1370790' date='Sep 12 2011, 05:30 PM']Yes very clever but if I didn't own a bass I wouldn't be on here at all would I?[/quote]

Edited September 12, 2011 by markstuk

[Grand Wazoo]

[quote name='markstuk' post='1370613' date='Sep 12 2011, 03:56 PM']How many Dingwalls do you have? [/quote]

3 of them and I couldn't do without them.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='davey_one_visits' post='1370744' date='Sep 12 2011, 04:55 PM']I've not been on here long but I have noticed a huge interest in gear and little interest in self improvement. It seems that the theory and technique section sometimes goes for ages without being touched. I'm always on the look out for worthwhile information being posted but have to trawl through pages of people showing off the gear they own or want to own. I own some nice stuff myself but I don't feel the need to discuss it on here at all.[/quote]
Once again it all comes down to personal taste what you are interested in.

For me the main value of this site is to find out about gear and look at pretty pictures of shiny basses. If I want to discover some interesting new music I'm more likely to get it from my friends, or from something like [url="http://www.scarygoround.com/sgr/ar.php?date=20081229"]John Allison's favourite albums of the year[/url] then I am here.

[JTUK]

I've got good gear to do what I want it to do.

I play live so I need stuff that works well. Do my basses make me a better player..?? yes..that is why I bought them.
Could I make a cheap bass work as well...?? not sure, when I consider all things.

[risingson]

[quote name='dc2009' post='1370805' date='Sep 12 2011, 05:48 PM']motown's soul and humanity is dubious, I swear half the time those terms are use to describe that music it's due to nostalgia and listener's preference, not any factual basis
Whilst a lot of modern pop is poor musically, Lady Gaga's stuff is some of the best. Some really well written songs (from a musical standpoint), she's actually a big iron maiden fan etc
If a modern band doesn't sound good production wise, I'd be the first to say why not? The audio quality should augment the listener's experience, not hinder it (IMO of course). What do I think sounds good production wise? I like stadium arcadium and for the more extreme stuff, Gorod's Process of a New Decline. These records have had lots of care and money spent on the instruments, recording equipment and production to final sound, something jamerson clearly didn't care for and something (again IMO ofc) I think his music suffers for in comparison to the two I just mentioned.[/quote]

I don't think we're going to agree here dc! Lady Gaga is talented in as much as she has managed to amass a small fortune through being musically talentless (she has other talents). I don't think she can sing, I think she's a terribly mediocre writer and I think people are numb to this because there's been far too long a time passed since the last truly exceptional female singer and writer. Her music's production lack depth, and the majority of her output is bereft of substance and quality.

And on the Motown front, well of course everything is personal preference, including a person's choice to listen to Lady Gaga. But if you were to tell me that Lady Gaga had the same level of skills that were displayed by the Motown songwriting and arranging team (HDH), producers and performers (both in-house and vocal), then the argument kind of starts to fall apart.

Continuing to use the Motown as an example, the production team at Hitsville did their level best to put something together that has ended up really standing the test of time (50 years and counting), in spite of their technological disadvantage in direct comparison to what even the most basic studios run today. All preference aside, it sounds brilliant. Unique too. There's nothing unique about Lady Gaga, a million and one people could do what she does, providing they had the money behind them, leading me to think the comparison between the two pretty redundant.

[mrtcat]

I practice hard to compensate for my lack of natural ability. I buy flash gear to compensate for my small penis.

[markstuk]

I just tell people I got my Dingwall cheap because the frets were all wonky [quote name='Johnston' post='1370860' date='Sep 12 2011, 06:33 PM']OI I would resemble that comment

I'm an infernal tinkerer. Cars, Computers, basses if there is something I fancy changing I change it. Hence why I ripped the active stuff out of one bass a) just to see and b ) because the pots were scratchy and I've since discovered one was actually falling apart.

If it's got a buzz, hum or ratlle I will try and do whatever to sort it. Oddly I'm not the same with cars they can rattle hum and buzz all they want

Some people feel better with high end gear just like some people prefer a new car over an old second hand one for piece of mind.

Also depending on circumstance you may be expected to be seen with a bit of high end gear. People make first impressions with their eyes. A known brand like a Fender makes a different impression to someone than a Sue Ryder. Sometimes you want that first impression to count in a favourable way .[/quote]

[Lfalex v1.1]

[quote name='Musicman20' post='1370550' date='Sep 12 2011, 03:23 PM']... Same with a car enthusiast....[/quote]
I love an automotive analogy.
I may not be the best driver in the world, but I can drive.
It's nice to have a choice of cars to drive

And in the real world, basses are (usually) cheaper to buy/maintain/mod/insure. They're easier to store and after 20 years of average use won't be a pile of useless rust!

[4000]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='1370826' date='Sep 12 2011, 06:01 PM']Once again it all comes down to personal taste what you are interested in.

For me the main value of this site is to find out about gear and look at pretty pictures of shiny basses.[/quote]

Yup, me too.

[Linus27]

For me I have to have a couple of working basses. Ones that I can take to gigs, on tour, get bashed and smashed about and be my best friend. After that then its a case of curiosity and collecting what I could never afford before.

Out of the five basses I have, one of my working basses is my old ESP Jazz which is now fretless, 23 years old and is probably my best sounding bass. This bass has never let me down and despite having other basses to choose from in the past, nothing has felt as easy and as comfortable to play or as sounded as good. My other working basses seems to be either my fretted Fender Precision or my Fender Jazz, depending on the project. Both of these basses will cover pretty much all possibilities or senarios. I also feel most comfortable playing a Fender shaped bass.

I also have a teal Stingray which was my dream bass when I was first learning bass. I bought it when I got my first record deal advance and then stupidly sold it when times were hard. My wife then bought me one again for my 40th last year. I love playing it but I can never feel 100% happy with the tone from it. It has sentimental value and so will never be sold. I have used it a couple of times in the studio and it has sounded awsome, I just can't crack it sounding good live.

I have just bought a Warwick Streamer Jazzman Fretless at a bargin price. This was more a case of curosity and wanted what I could never afford before. I always loved the look of the Warwick Streamer and also the tone but could never ever afford one when first getting into bass. Now they are so cheap to buy secondhand I decided to treat myself. I may use it live at some point but I don't think it sounds as good as my ESP fretless.

ESP Jazz Fretless - In use live and studio
Fender Precision - In use live and studio
Fender Jazz - In use live and studio
Musicman Stingray - Dream bass/40th present, occasionally used live and in studio
Warwick Streamer Jazzman - Collectable item but may use live or studio but too soon to tell

As for other basses, I would love a Warwick Streamer LX4 and a Fender 51 Precision re-issue but they would both be for live use which would mean that the Fender Jazz and Precision would not have any purpose. Not sure I will ever get them but again, I could bag them both for around a grand so not really big money.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Linus27

[dc2009]

[quote name='risingson' post='1370847' date='Sep 12 2011, 06:17 PM']I don't think we're going to agree here dc! Lady Gaga is talented in as much as she has managed to amass a small fortune through being musically talentless (she has other talents). I don't think she can sing, I think she's a terribly mediocre writer and I think people are numb to this because there's been far too long a time passed since the last truly exceptional female singer and writer. Her music's production lack depth, and the majority of her output is bereft of substance and quality.

And on the Motown front, well of course everything is personal preference, including a person's choice to listen to Lady Gaga. But if you were to tell me that Lady Gaga had the same level of skills that were displayed by the Motown songwriting and arranging team (HDH), producers and performers (both in-house and vocal), then the argument kind of starts to fall apart.

Continuing to use the Motown as an example, the production team at Hitsville did their level best to put something together that has ended up really standing the test of time (50 years and counting), in spite of their technological disadvantage in direct comparison to what even the most basic studios run today. All preference aside, it sounds brilliant. Unique too. There's nothing unique about Lady Gaga, a million and one people could do what she does, providing they had the money behind them, leading me to think the comparison between the two pretty redundant.[/quote]

She was a successful writer for many years before writing for herself. In my book, that makes her musically talented. If the Motown guys were 'talented' then they might have written songs that didn't all sound like each other, and I might actually like some of it. IMO they were boring musicians and producers and you'd have to pay me to listen to said dross.

As for standing the test of time, I can honestly say you're the first person I've encountered under 30 years of age who is a Motown fan, the lions share of Motown listeners are people who grew up with it. I'd argue it really hasn't stood the test of time, because so few young people these days choose to listen to it. As for saying preferences aside, it sounds brilliant, that really isn't preferences aside, as I think it sounds terrible. I can think of several people, in contrast, who put lady gaga on their playlist, and no Motown, and IMO, she sounds a lot better.

As for saying a million and one people could do what she does, so could all of the Motown writers be classed as the same. I'm sure plenty of people were skilled enough musicians, and would rather have been pro musos than factory workers or unemployed.

To draw it all together, those guys were using the best they had available to them, just as miss gaga does now. They were also both enormously popular in their own right, not caring too much because in the end, it's all going to sound very similar on that LP through that gramophone. I don't see anything wrong with using the best equipment available to you, or with writing music that you know will sell fantastically well, and be very popular.