All the gear and no-eye-dear

[TrevorR]

[quote name='jonsmith' timestamp='1442187798' post='2865060']
Reading some of the comments in the thread, some felt that there was no need to strive for good sound in the pub, because the audience wouldn't notice anyway. This seems a little contemptuous to me, but if it's a justification for not taking the gear you believe will deliver the best sound, then to me that reads as not being that fussed about how you sound. If we all do care about our sound, then the original question is answered - we discuss what gear we might use in the pub and take the best equipment we have available because we want to achieve the best sound possible, whatever our budget might be. Of course best might not be most expensive, but there is still a decision being made out of a desire to give the best one can. It was suggested that this wasn't required down the pub.
[/quote]

For me this is the interesting question which hasn't been addressed in this thread. The implication that different venues warrant/require/deserve different quality of gear. The logical corollary to that is that the Whippet & Snorkel only warrants a Squier, a wedding gig warrants a MIM Fender, a theatre gig warrants a U.S. standard and the Royal Albert Hall warrants a U.S. Custom Shop model. It has been stated as an assertion but there hasn't been any unpacking of the reasoning behind it.

For me that type of thinking is wrongheaded and, frankly, irrelevant to my world. Any and all audiences deserve the best performance I can give. For that reason I've never had a problem playing "cheesy" crowd pleasing songs... because they please the crowd and for me that has been at the core of the job of any band I've played in.

I personally own 4 electric basses. Two are (I suppose) vintage boutique types, one is the first bass I ever got (and still a cracking bass to play), the other is a Frankenjazz project bass. I play all of them because I love them. They are my basses. They are the ones I play. End of. I don't rank them against each other (although for, say, a 60s theme night I might use the Jazz for purely aesthetic reasons).

When I gig I always take two basses, as insurance against a failure (the fact that in 25 years of playing I've only had a ,problem materialise twice - once with a bass, once with an amp - is neither here nor there). The show must go on. The fact that since I then have 2 basses I can swap different basses for different songs is a) a personal indulgence and b ) a personal artistic choice. Sure I can play any song with any of my basses but to my ears A Town Called Malice sounds so right on my Pro bass and Lady Marmalade or Babylon sounds so nice on my MK 1 Custom. Do the audience notice... Consciously almost certainly not but if I give a better performance for a load of indefinable mojo related reasons they will on a subconscious level (and their feet will hopefully notice too).

Edited September 14, 2015 by TrevorR

[mcnach]

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1442219285' post='2865138']
And the problem is...will that gig suffer an 'idiot' failure..??

It it will...then not a real problem...if it wont, you probably wouldn't get asked again.. etc etc
[/quote]

+1

it really boils down to this.

if I play at a local music bar and break a string, my bandmates start a jam improvising lyrics about my broken G-string (true story! in a RHCP tribute band)

if I am playing a "serious" gig... I would like to have a backup if possible.

The thing is that I don' think a Squier Jazz is more likely to fail than a Fender Jazz, for example, provided you treat them equally well and maintain them. Amplifiers are another matter.

[TrevorR]

[quote name='barneyg42' timestamp='1442210755' post='2865085']
I always carry spare heads!!
[/quote]

[ubit]

Will this ever end ?

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='ubit' timestamp='1442301440' post='2865787']
Will this ever end ?
[/quote]

Not before I say my piece! In the past I used to only carry a spare set of strings. If one broke the singer used to fill in while I changed over. Then for the next few songs there would be a interlude while I fine tuned the new rope. Never used to take a spare amp and for years I used a Carlsboro Stingray combo, which despite its bad press could do two things very well, i) loud ii) could be dropped down stairs, off stages etc without any adverse effects.

Now I've got a bit more money for gear I take a spare bass and head. At the last band the spare bass was a Westone Thunder IA, which was thrown in the back of the car and was never used (I'm easier on strings nowadays). For a spare head I used a GKMB200 that went in a ruck sack and despite gigging an Ampeg SVT Pro II at the time the GK was never used.

As far as pricey basses go I've a US built Spector and another on the way. Both of them are North of £2K and in my own inimitable style, I don't give a monkey's chuff-box what anyone else thinks. I've got a very nice Jule / Demeter set up too, so well done me! I'm not even that great a player, but I is what I is and I like what I likes. From ages 15 to 40 I played semi-pro carrying my bass in a bin-liner and often plugging into whatever was available, so I've earned my stripes and have no qualms about buying nice kit.

I never judge people on the kit they own and I'm frequently blown into the weeds by some youngster and a cheap J or P. More power to them I say

[mcnach]

[quote name='ubit' timestamp='1442301440' post='2865787']
Will this ever end ?
[/quote]

Never. I'll make sure of it.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='ubit' timestamp='1442301440' post='2865787']
Will this ever end ?
[/quote]

Only whenever people stop commenting about how boring, useless, or inflammatory this thread is.

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1442303428' post='2865800']
I never judge people on the kit they own and I'm frequently blown into the weeds by some youngster and a cheap J or P. More power to them I say
[/quote]

My thoughts exactly. I'm quite proud to have been able to help people starting out in music to make good choices regarding the gear they start on. It's fantastic when you see pictures on Facebook of these people a year later, still playing the same cheapo guitar, but in front of maybe 80 people.

[TimR]

I played my Marlin Sidewinder £120 new in 1985 for 6 years. I didn't have a clue how awful it was until I got a decent job and started looking at other basses.

All the guys around me also had super cheap beaten up basses. It didn't matter. Our fans (school mates) flocked to see us. We were stars and famous (well to about 3000 people anyway )

However once we then tried 'better' basses we were sold on them and what we were playing were really not as good. Basses that had necks that stayed straight, machine heads that stayed in tune, shielding, jacks where the plugs weren't loose, bottom end, notes that had sustain etc.

Things that we didn't know about.

[Rich]

[color=#222222][quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1442053408' post='2864053']
I also don't think I've used the term unjustifiable indulgence. Indulgences are fine, IMO.
[/quote][/color]
[color=#222222]No, but you've used the term "unjustifiable". As in, “[i]I [/i][/color][color=#000000][i]think it's entirely unjustifiable today to spend £2,000 on an acoustic guitar[/i]”.[/color]
[color=#000000]I'm intrigued to know: if I wanted to spend £2k on an acoustic guitar (I don't, but bear with me), in what way should I be able to justify it, and to whom would I need to do so?[/color]

[Rich]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1442329445' post='2866082']
I played my Marlin Sidewinder £120 new in 1985 for 6 years. I didn't have a clue how awful it was until I got a decent job and started looking at other basses.

All the guys around me also had super cheap beaten up basses. It didn't matter. Our fans (school mates) flocked to see us. We were stars and famous (well to about 3000 people anyway )

However once we then tried 'better' basses we were sold on them and what we were playing were really not as good. Basses that had necks that stayed straight, machine heads that stayed in tune, shielding, jacks where the plugs weren't loose, bottom end, notes that had sustain etc.

Things that we didn't know about.
[/quote]
I know [i]exactly[/i] what you mean. I started off with a '65 Hofner Artist and graduated from there to a Columbus Jazz copy (plywood body etc).
I jumped straight from that to a Wal.
You can imagine what a simply gigantic quantum leap in quality and playability and sheer class that was!

[cheddatom]

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1442330284' post='2866091']

No, but you've used the term "unjustifiable". As in, “[i]I [/i][color=#000000][i]think it's entirely unjustifiable today to spend £2,000 on an acoustic guitar[/i]”.[/color]
[color=#000000]I'm intrigued to know: if I wanted to spend £2k on an acoustic guitar (I don't, but bear with me), in what way should I be able to justify it, and to whom would I need to do so?[/color]
[/quote]

Like I said earlier, loads of acoustics are great. However, the Gibson I was talking about has a load more low end. If you need a load more low end for the studio (could get away with EQ at a gig if you wanted) then the justification for spending £2K is obvious. Furthermore, the fact that I managed to point this out to Milty who hadn't realised that you could get more low end out of this guitar (versus a Faith) justifies all of our discussions about which gear is "better" and more importantly, why.

Edited September 15, 2015 by cheddatom

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1442329445' post='2866082']
I played my Marlin Sidewinder £120 new in 1985 for 6 years. I didn't have a clue how awful it was until I got a decent job and started looking at other basses.

All the guys around me also had super cheap beaten up basses. It didn't matter. Our fans (school mates) flocked to see us. We were stars and famous (well to about 3000 people anyway )

However once we then tried 'better' basses we were sold on them and what we were playing were really not as good. Basses that had necks that stayed straight, machine heads that stayed in tune, shielding, jacks where the plugs weren't loose, bottom end, notes that had sustain etc.

Things that we didn't know about.
[/quote]

The rate of progress in production of consumer goods has been fantastic over the last 30 years, though. Where you would have struggled to get anything at all for your £120 in 1985 (which is probably more like £250 in today's money), you could now get something very well made for that. One example is a guitar that we sold by the bucket-load, and it was just £80. No, the tuners weren't fantastic, and it wasn't made by "craftsmen" in some high-tech production facility, where each pieces of wood is meticulously sanded with finer and finer grades of sandpaper until they all fit together like a glove, but it did sound good, it was made from proper tradition guitar-building materials, and they were very easy to play. When I wanted to just sit down and mess about on guitar for a while, I always picked one of the £80 guitars. Yes we had nicer guitars, but I felt that the £80 was just what a beginner guitar should be, so I stuck with it. That had the added benefit of knowing exactly what to say about it when selling it.

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1442330284' post='2866091']

No, but you've used the term "unjustifiable". As in, “[i]I [/i][color=#000000][i]think it's entirely unjustifiable today to spend £2,000 on an acoustic guitar[/i]”.[/color]
[color=#000000]I'm intrigued to know: if I wanted to spend £2k on an acoustic guitar (I don't, but bear with me), in what way should I be able to justify it, and to whom would I need to do so?[/color]
[/quote]

There must be some confusion. I think it's unjustifiable. I don't know why me holding that opinion means that you need to somehow go to some shadowy minister of justifications and seek their approval.

One simply can't state an opinion without people starting the ol' whataboutery.

[Billy Apple]

£2K for a decent acoustic is probably quite reasonable. If it's handmade there'll be an awful lot of time and skill gone into it.

[ezbass]

[quote name='Billy Apple' timestamp='1442331304' post='2866100']
£2K for a decent acoustic is probably quite reasonable. If it's handmade there'll be an awful lot of time and skill gone into it.
[/quote]And compared to classical instruments that's a drop in the ocean, their 'quality' stuff is insanely expensive

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1442330973' post='2866098']
There must be some confusion. I think it's unjustifiable. I don't know why me holding that opinion means that you need to somehow go to some shadowy minister of justifications and seek their approval.

One simply can't state an opinion without people starting the ol' whataboutery.
[/quote]

Have a look at the definition of the word unjustifiable: "Not able to be shown to be right or reasonable" (from oxforddictionaries.com)

When you describe something as "unjustifiable", you are not simply stating your own opinion, you are dismissing the other persons views or actions as unreasonable or wrong. If that wasn't what you meant by it, you need to consider your choice of words more carefully. If that [i]was[/i] what you meant, the reactions are quite reasonable IMO.

[TimR]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1442330973' post='2866098']


The rate of progress in production of consumer goods has been fantastic over the last 30 years, though. Where you would have struggled to get anything at all for your £120 in 1985 (which is probably more like £250 in today's money), you could now get something very well made for that. One example is a guitar that we sold by the bucket-load, and it was just £80. No, the tuners weren't fantastic, and it wasn't made by "craftsmen" in some high-tech production facility, where each pieces of wood is meticulously sanded with finer and finer grades of sandpaper until they all fit together like a glove, but it did sound good, it was made from proper tradition guitar-building materials, and they were very easy to play. When I wanted to just sit down and mess about on guitar for a while, I always picked one of the £80 guitars. Yes we had nicer guitars, but I felt that the £80 was just what a beginner guitar should be, so I stuck with it. That had the added benefit of knowing exactly what to say about it when selling it.



There must be some confusion. I think it's unjustifiable. I don't know why me holding that opinion means that you need to somehow go to some shadowy minister of justifications and seek their approval.

One simply can't state an opinion without people starting the ol' whataboutery.
[/quote]

The differences are still there and still obvious to an experienced player. It's then down to the player to decide whether they're important.

Ultimately what you're saying is what we used to call an intermediate bass is now a beginner bass with a very attractive price tag.

[ivansc]

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1442330542' post='2866092']
I know [i]exactly[/i] what you mean. I started off with a '65 Hofner Artist and graduated from there to a Columbus Jazz copy (plywood body etc).
I jumped straight from that to a Wal.
You can imagine what a simply gigantic quantum leap in quality and playability and sheer class that was!
[/quote]

My first bass was a 1962 Fender USA Precision. Couldn't afford the case so it travelled in its cardboard box. Bought it used in 1963 for sixty quid. Had to sell it in 1963. For sixty quid.
Never had another bass I was happy with till I got given a P.O.S. Epiphone prototype Explorer bass, which morphed into my main gigging bass from 1983 to date!

Finally got BACK to a 62 AVRI reissue a couple of month ago. Happy bunny. And this one does have a case!
But I still have a soft spot for that Epi.

Edited September 15, 2015 by ivansc

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='Beer of the Bass' timestamp='1442331771' post='2866110']
Have a look at the definition of the word unjustifiable: "Not able to be shown to be right or reasonable"
[/quote]

That doesn't say to whom, though. My wording was fine. Some posters have trawled this thread and tried to make a mockery of my original point, simply because they disagree. Like I said much earlier in the thread - I see it differently, and (some of) you don't seem to be able to handle that without getting very upset. Resorting to pedantry to try and make petty points to prove that you're right to be upset about my opinion isn't a good look for you, Beer.

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1442332164' post='2866114']
The differences are still there and still obvious to an experienced player. It's then down to the player to decide whether they're important.

Ultimately what you're saying is what we used to call an intermediate bass is now a beginner bass with a very attractive price tag.
[/quote]

Essentially yes.

[TrevorR]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1441296630' post='2857719']

No, just interested to know why cheaper gear isn't good enough for many "weekend warriors".
[/quote]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1441403715' post='2858739']

...It isn't that I think that expensive gear is bought to impress an audience for local pub covers bands, more that it simply doesn't impress the audience, because it's only musicians who get so into the detail of such a thing, and that's just another reason as to why it's not required to have flashy gear. And it's not even that I'm saying that certain venues require certain gear, as somebody suggested earlier - utter hogwash. Simply that really expensive and boutique instruments simply aren't required in that setting.
[/quote]

I'm still fascinated to know why you make the various correlations which you have... Between gig setting and expense of gear, between a notional level of "requirement" and level of gig. I'm not entirely sure you've unpacked the thinking and/or justification behind these statements.

It seems to imply a level of correlation behind venue quality and your gear choices (in terms of quality and price). How do you see that working? For instance, what IS the top level of what is "required" for that playing setting... And who decides.

Or is it simply that you are wondering why people who will never play Wembley (and only ever play or aspire to play in journeyman settings) ever buy expensive, hand-built or boutique gear as opposed to buying a MIM Frender and being happy with that.

If it is the latter I suspect it is just that the choices/thought processes involved are so more complex and human than some sliding scale of gear price appropriateness vs status within the music industry. I think all of the range of answers to that complex thought process have been alluded to... From "yes, I'm quite content playing my Squier" to "because I've always fancied an [insert expensive bass name here] and now I can afford it" via "well, playing a bass that I love and that speaks to me gives me more confidence as a player and so I play better" and "I reckon that it's going to sound 'better' and be more reliable than a cheapie'". Ultimately, don't they all validly answer the question which you've posed. And since they are all purely personal choices aren't they all valid. You are happy with your Faith acoustic (they are great little guitars), others are happy with their Gibsons, Taylor's, Martins, Froggy Bottoms and Olsens irrespective of how much money they will ever earn them.

[cheddatom]

The OP mentions the context of recording. Although in a live situation, the "best" sounding gear probably isn't required, in a recording situation, it definitely is. Whether that's a £100 guitar off ebay, or a £2000 acoustic

Are we just abandoning this aspect of the OP? It's just recorded sound interests me much more than live

[Rich]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1442330973' post='2866098']
There must be some confusion. I think it's unjustifiable. I don't know why me holding that opinion means that you need to somehow go to some shadowy minister of justifications and seek their approval.[/quote]There is no confusion. You could have said 'unnecessary' which would have been fine, but you specifically said it's 'unjustifiable'. My question is, a) [color=#000000]in what way is it unjustifiable, and b} in what way should I be trying to justify it? Come to that, c) why should I need to? [/color]

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1442332787' post='2866128']
There is no confusion. You could have said 'unnecessary' which would have been fine, but you specifically said it's 'unjustifiable'. My question is, a) [color=#000000]in what way is it unjustifiable, and b} in what way should I be trying to justify it? Come to that, c) why should I need to? [/color]
[/quote]

So you don't justify your purchases (to yourself) before you buy? That seems a bit strange.

[Beer of the Bass]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1442332476' post='2866124']
That doesn't say to whom, though. My wording was fine. Some posters have trawled this thread and tried to make a mockery of my original point, simply because they disagree. Like I said much earlier in the thread - I see it differently, and (some of) you don't seem to be able to handle that without getting very upset. Resorting to pedantry to try and make petty points to prove that you're right to be upset about my opinion isn't a good look for you, Beer.
[/quote]

I'm not upset in the slightest. It's just that you seem to have a knack of rubbing people up the wrong way and then acting as if you're oblivious to why this happens. This would not be the first thread where this has happened. I figure that this could either be intentional or unintentional. I considered that in the latter case, it might be useful offer my suggestions as to why people respond as they do. But at this point I'm leaning towards thinking that you post in this manner intentionally, in which case you're edging closer and closer to my ignore list.

[MiltyG565]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1442332775' post='2866126']
The OP mentions the context of recording. Although in a live situation, the "best" sounding gear probably isn't required, in a recording situation, it definitely is. Whether that's a £100 guitar off ebay, or a £2000 acoustic

Are we just abandoning this aspect of the OP? It's just recorded sound interests me much more than live
[/quote]

Different things require different gear. Recording is about the best possible sound, and the best possible version of you playing. People can and will pick your parts out of the mix and listen to them intensely. The same problem isn't faced in a local pub cover band.

[Rich]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1442333003' post='2866133']
So you don't justify your purchases (to yourself) before you buy? That seems a bit strange.
[/quote]
If I purchase something, it's because there's a particular need that it's filling. Is that what you mean by justify? Surely if I need an acoustic guitar, and there a couple one of which is £500 and the other £2000, and I try them and on balance[i] I prefer [/i]the £2k one, and it's fulfilling that need, then it's 'justified', right?
So when you say it's unjustifiable, what you mean is that you wouldn't be able to justify it to yourself? Yes?
I'm just trying to establish exactly why you've specifically used 'unjustifiable'.