BAD GAS!! :O Mike Lull

[bigsmokebass]

Haha not a bad shape on the behringer (bad taste?) for a cheap guitar but just seems empty and too pale :-/

BSB

[bigsmokebass]

Looking again . . . It does look somewhat phallic, I take my opinion back XD

BSB

[bubinga5]

love it.. Lulls basses are fantastic...

[Gust0o]

[quote name='bigsmokebass' timestamp='1341620874' post='1722078']
Have you seen the ESP LTD Surveyers? I know far from a Mike Lull but sounds like your sort of bass
[/quote]

I've wanted to try one of these for a while. They seem to do well enough for the chap in Karma to Burn, and that's much the playing style and style of music I've been trying to emulate, so hey...

I just need to find one at a realistic price, or find a nearby user to let me have a go.

[bigsmokebass]

I never made much of LTD's tbh, I think the Surveyer would make an excellent gigging bass, something if you have throw about or jump around with and knocking cymbals with (guilty!) than your expensive Studio/home basses.

Thinking about it, the Surveyer would be an excellent budget Lull guitar.
May get around to trying both

BSB

[sime17]

[quote name='JimBobTTD' timestamp='1341651788' post='1722236']
This is pretty much exactly how I feel.

The Lull headstock reminds me far too much of this:



Sorry!

[/quote]Does Coppolo make guitars for Behringer then?

Thanks for this, I might include it in my 42-slide powerpoint* presentation on headstock aesthetics, just after the extensive discussion on 'how the tele and tele bass only get away with it on historical grounds'.

Sorry - I need help.

(*-well Keynote presentation actually as my aesthetic obsession has also led to an expensive Apple habit and hatred of Microsoft. Just saying is all, and not in a smug way honest.)

[HazBeen]

I own 2 Lulls for their sound, playability and build quality, not their headstock and imho buying or not buying a bass because of how it looks ranks up there with woman buying shoes. Form over function....

Now in answer to the actual question, Lull B strings are a top act! Anyone who has actually ever played/owned one will concur.

[sime17]

Ok dude you've convinced me... looks are irrelevent on an instrument. I'm gonna trade in all my gorgeous basses for some super-light and ultra-compact square headless Steinberger thingies. Mmmmm. Function over form!

Anyway, gotta go, my mrs needs a lift to millets to buy some new shoes. Fire up the Reliant!

[Musicman20]

[quote name='sime17' timestamp='1342646563' post='1738782']
Ok dude you've convinced me... looks are irrelevent on an instrument. I'm gonna trade in all my gorgeous basses for some super-light and ultra-compact square headless Steinberger thingies. Mmmmm. Function over form!

Anyway, gotta go, my mrs needs a lift to millets to buy some new shoes. Fire up the Reliant!
[/quote]

Haha!

For me, if it isn't a design I find grabs me, I won't buy it, no matter what it plays like.

There are plenty of basses that look great and sound great.

[Owen]

[quote name='sime17' timestamp='1341620520' post='1722074']
This ^^ - Dude, long lost twin or what! Small hands mean 34" for me and it can still have a good B. But dude -I have a real headstock snobbery thing going on.

Of the Fender-style instruments' headstocks: Fender=standard classic. EBMM=good. Lakland=ok-to-good. Ibanez Blazer=cool twist. Sandberg Californias=just about pulls it off. Overwater J=good. Tanglewater J=just allright. Yamaha BB=meh. G+L=too fussy. Sadowsky=limp. Alleva Coppolo=awful (like a Fender with a sock placed over it). Lull=wanna like em but the headstock=just no. It's all about the curve and the knob on the end, or lack thereof. How can some get it so wrong?

Have I gone too far with this? Should I get my coat?
[/quote]

This .