So whats the story about Wal basses?

[saibuster]

I never seen or played a Wal in real life, and it seems like i have been missing all the fun...
These basses shift at incredible prices and it seems like every time someone even mentions a wal, people start GASing and drooling.

So whats the story behind these basses? are they really that good? did people rave about them the same way when they were still produced, or is it
simply a "Kurt Cobain" effect?

Can anyone recommend a good commercial recording that showcase the "wal sound"?

cheers,
Ito

[jmesa]

Blood Sugar Sex Magik

Last 2 Tool albums

[flychris]

The WAl sound of the FLEA sound is behind....

[saibuster]

i didnt know that! i always thought that before switching to modulus flea was playing musicman stingray exclusively.
The sound on blood sugar sex magic is amazing but kind of hard to tell about the "true" nature of the tone as everything
is being played very aggressively.

[small_lump_of_green_putty]

i can't up my mind about Wals. They're growly and warm like Mark King's on the Princes Trust and then sometimes they sound boxy too. I guess it must be that filter eq.

[silverfoxnik]

Trevor Horn has used them a lot over the years and IIRC, most of the bass on Frankie Goes To Hollywood's album 'Welcome to the Pleasuredome' is a Wal and it sounds fantastic! Think he also used one on 'Slave To The Rhythm' by Grace Jones...

[paul h]

I played a Wal...once.

Many years ago when my whipper was still snapping (?) I chanced into a music shop in Southampton. I had a quick go on some kind of Wal, I'm afraid I have no idea what model. I do remember it was £400 which was way over my budget (still is) and my GAS hadn't fully developed into the sickness it is now.

The action was awful, I could literally fit my admittedly femininely proportioned hand betwixt strings and fretboard. However, it still played and sounded incredible. My memory and the details are fuzzy, so what exactly about the sound was incredible I could not say but I do distinctly remember being bloody impressed.

Never seen one in the flesh since but I still quite fancy one. But probably not enough to buy one instead of a car, for example.

Paul.

[BassBod]

As I've said before, I've owned two over the years, and passed them on each time. Mainly due to weight and (lack of) balance. However, I still rate them highly in terms of originality and construction - and they were always a pleasure to deal with.

I've never played any of the more developed versions with extended top horns and lighter tuners, but I guess I would be more comfortable with these.

I've heard other people sound great on them....but not for me.

[bassaussie]

My impression of the Wal market is this. Wal's are very good basses, and have a wonderful electronics package in them that can achieve a wide varieties of tones. However, the prices they are currently fetching has very little to do with their ability as an instrument, and more to do with American interest in them since Flea used one on BSSM and Justin Chancellor's use of them. On so many occasions I've seen people talk about the "Wal" tone, and reference Chancellor, and yet for me, I don't think his tone is particularly indicative of what a Wal can do, and further, I think you can achieve a very similar tone to his with other, far more readily available instruments. As for the Flea/BSSM connection, although I know it's a Wal that he used (yep! I've seen the video ), every time I listen to that album, it just sounds like a Stingray to me. Add to this the fact that there's constant doubt over whether Wal will ever produce any more basses, and this adds to the desperation of people who simply have to sound like their idols.

I'd love to own a Wal, but not while there's this fanboy culture around them that has pushed their prices up to ridiculous levels.

Just as a matter of interest, when I first came over to Europe in 1997, I can remember seeing 2 or 3 Wal basses in the Bass Gallery/Bass Centre for just under £1000, and I'd also see the occasional one come up in classifieds for far less - maybe around the £600-800 mark. The point I'm making here is that those prices were prior to the huge interest that started in them, and I think they reflected what the English market thought of them - good quality basses that were still in a price range that gigging bassist's might be able to afford.

[guzzibass]

Didn't Mick Karn play one in his Japan days?

[lemmywinks]

I think you can get the same quality for much less money. My Zoot is an English luthier built instrument, made from select woods etc. and cost me little over £700 with a flightcase. Ditto Shuker stuff at the moment. The reason Wals command astronomical prices is the same reason old fenders sell for thousands, demand outweighs supply, although i know which i would choose if i had £3000 to spend on a bass!
Still sound awesome though!

Edited November 23, 2008 by lemmywinks

[s_u_y_*]

[quote name='bassaussie' post='334750' date='Nov 23 2008, 10:31 AM']My impression of the Wal market is this. Wal's are very good basses, and have a wonderful electronics package in them that can achieve a wide varieties of tones. However, the prices they are currently fetching has very little to do with their ability as an instrument, and more to do with American interest in them since Flea used one on BSSM and Justin Chancellor's use of them.

... and this adds to the desperation of people who simply have to sound like their idols.[/quote]

+1. I love the Wals I've tried. The sheer tonal spectrum is amazing (if not a little daunting). But the "Justin Chancellor hero worship" effect is definately helping to hyperinflate the prices of these basses after talking to quite a number of Tool fans.

Edited November 23, 2008 by s_u_y_*

[BigRedX]

[quote name='guzzibass' post='334890' date='Nov 23 2008, 01:59 PM']Didn't Mick Karn play one in his Japan days?[/quote]

Only right at the very end.

Most of the classic Japan fretless sound comes from a Travis Bean TB2000.


It's ironic that two of the most cited Wal players, one (Justin Chancellor) has a tone that relies as much on his FX as on his bass and the other (Mick Karn) used a completely different bass on most of the recordings he is best known for and when he did switch to using the Wal it made only a slight difference to his sound.

You could say then that the Wal sound is a versatile one, and one that allows the player rather than the bass to be heard.

[silverfoxnik]

[quote name='BigRedX' post='334910' date='Nov 23 2008, 02:22 PM']You could say then that the Wal sound is a versatile one, and one that allows the player rather than the bass to be heard.[/quote]

That's a really good point, though I also think that Wals do have a distictive tone of their own, especially the early Pro models which don't have the huge tonal range of the Custom ones.

[Kiwi]

I remember seeing about 3 or 4 auctions of wal basses during the time they were becoming ridiculously priced and there was one bidder who snagged 3 or them for relatively obscene amounts. It looked like they had decided they wanted certain examples at whatever it took to get them.

[bassaussie]

FWIW, there are other examples of instruments that have become collectible for similar reasons.

In bass terms, the most obvious would be Carl Thompson basses. The main difference being that he's still producing. Mention Carl Thompson to most younger bass players, and Les Claypool's basses will nearly certainly be the first thing mentioned, followed quickly by how much the player would like to sound like Les.

For me, though, the brand that really epitomises collectable-through-association is Zemaitis. Take the price you might expect to see a Wal go for, then add a zero at the end. Then multiply that by 2 .... or 3!! All because Ronny Wood used one in that damned "Start Me Up" video!

[saibuster]

thanks for your answers guys!

So if i understand correctly the reason for the price tag that these basses command is more due to emotional reasons rather than logical.
I mean, if i end up paying 3k for a 4 string Shuker or Zoot it is going to be a beast with best possible raw materials that are available on the
market.

Its interesting that you mentioned Carl Thompson as i have two friends who played a CT bass and both of them basically said it was the best
bass they ever played, tonally and balance/built etc. Its important that both of them are not Primus or Les Claypool fans.

[silverfoxnik]

[quote name='saibuster' post='335241' date='Nov 24 2008, 12:45 AM']thanks for your answers guys!

So if i understand correctly the reason for the price tag that these basses command is more due to emotional reasons rather than logical.
I mean, if i end up paying 3k for a 4 string Shuker or Zoot it is going to be a beast with best possible raw materials that are available on the
market.

Its interesting that you mentioned Carl Thompson as i have two friends who played a CT bass and both of them basically said it was the best
bass they ever played, tonally and balance/built etc. Its important that both of them are not Primus or Les Claypool fans.[/quote]
I don't think it's just that...

There is some truth in the fact that Wal prices have risen over the last few years as the production of new ones ground to a halt. But with Paul Herman taking over the brand now, that may change things and bring prices down to more realistic levels.

However, there's many more people looking to buy vintage Fenders, for example, than Wals. So I don't think it's just the fact that 'collectors' have driven the prices up. It still has a great deal to do with the fact that they are incredibly well made and unique instruments that don't really have too many competitors out there in terms of what the electronics do...

Just my 2p worth.

[chris_b]

[quote name='saibuster' post='335241' date='Nov 24 2008, 12:45 AM']....So if i understand correctly the reason for the price tag that these basses command is more due to emotional reasons rather than logical.
I mean, if i end up paying 3k for a 4 string Shuker or Zoot it is going to be a beast with best possible raw materials that are available on the
market....[/quote]
Errrr, no!!
Wal basses are very well designed and have always been consistently made to the highest standard. The woods used and incredible in house designed electrics and pickups produce a great tone, live and in the studio. Wal has this well earned reputation because they have been made the same way by the same guy for 35 years.
This reputation for quality, the low production output and the fact that they are no longer made by Pete Stevens has pushed the demand and price up.

[Kiwi]

Deep Impact pedals went up in value after the bloke in Muse started using one too.

There is no question in my mind that endorsement helps values of used instruments as well as new ones. I agree that the scarcity, build quality, brand association and probably some speculative buying initially also contributed to the price increases of Wals. I really admire how the instruments haven't changed that much in so many years. You know the makers have confidence in their product and the market approves of what they're doing.

I haven't played many 5 string Wals yet (maybe only 2 in my life) but I liked the fretless that I played. Very smooth. Depending on what the prices are, I'll maybe think about putting one on the GAS list at some point. Its great the brand has been saved though.

From what I understand, Paul contributed to the construction of many Wals so the change in ownership wouldn't justify much difference between pre and post Fish models like you get with preCBS fenders. I'm sure that won't stop claims on Ebay to the contrary though

[spiritchaser]

The tonal range of a WAL ... OK, so you need a Stingray sound - just a flic of the electronics and you're there. You need that tin-like, hollow Ricky sound - same. Fender? Wait just gimme a few seconds - there it is. You need a piano-like Ken Smith-sound? no problem. And you have your DI out at hand for recording or in any live mixing-console situation. It just takes some time to become accustomed to the electronic possibilities of this instrument and on a dark stage looking for the right pu-setup can be a problem.
It's the versatility in tone, the perfect playability and the perfect craftsmanship that makes a WAL a WAL in my view.
And they just look and feel great. My MK I fretless 4 string was my first fretless bass ever and I didn't have any problems with intonation at all. I felt at home right away. Some say the WAL necks feel chunky - well try one of those Warwick stems and think again. WAL necks feel like those of normal Jazz-necks to me.
Also, try to get that low action you can achieve on these chunky necks on a Stingray and you will fail. My MK II fiver's low-action playability is perfect from the lowest up to the highest fret. These basses just play like butter.
And they re-sell like Mercedes Benz cars just because they are that good, extremely rare and built with a lot of love to detail.

tc Oliver

[YouMa]

They do sound great but am i the only one who thinks they are quite ugly? (reminds me of a tank for some reason)

[bremen]

[quote name='spiritchaser' post='335317' date='Nov 24 2008, 09:57 AM']The tonal range of a WAL ... OK, so you need a Stingray sound - just a flic of the electronics and you're there. You need that tin-like, hollow Ricky sound - same. Fender? Wait just gimme a few seconds - there it is. You need a piano-like Ken Smith-sound? no problem. And you have your DI out at hand for recording or in any live mixing-console situation. It just takes some time to become accustomed to the electronic possibilities of this instrument and on a dark stage looking for the right pu-setup can be a problem.
It's the versatility in tone, the perfect playability and the perfect craftsmanship that makes a WAL a WAL in my view.
And they just look and feel great. My MK I fretless 4 string was my first fretless bass ever and I didn't have any problems with intonation at all. I felt at home right away. Some say the WAL necks feel chunky - well try one of those Warwick stems and think again. WAL necks feel like those of normal Jazz-necks to me.
Also, try to get that low action you can achieve on these chunky necks on a Stingray and you will fail. My MK II fiver's low-action playability is perfect from the lowest up to the highest fret. These basses just play like butter.
And they re-sell like Mercedes Benz cars just because they are that good, extremely rare and built with a lot of love to detail.

tc Oliver[/quote]

I'm beginning to regret turning down the WAL fretless I was offered for £150 a few years back. 'I've already got 2 basses, why would I want another?'

[ARGH]

Ive played and hunted for Wal's for years,and the price hike has been going on for at least 5-6 years.

This is my mind playing tricks Im sure,but they feel solid,like a P Bass,like a weapon,you know there is EVERY tone under the wood,in those pots,and it takes careful dialling ,but they are there.... And they can take the road,unlike Alembics or Gretch's. Its probably one of 3 instrument makers that in my mind live up to the hype.. The only con I can think of is that they are bitch heavy,but they were designed for studio use in mind in perticular the MKII's. They do have a 'Woah' factor too...yep they are that good.

For what you get,I would say 3k is the top limit in reality for a 2 P/U 4 string with really fancy electrics and build quality,but as always the law of supply & demand come into play.

[ARGH]

[quote name='YouMa' post='335322' date='Nov 24 2008, 10:13 AM']They do sound great but am i the only one who thinks they are quite ugly? (reminds me of a tank for some reason)[/quote]
Agreed,I think they are pigawful,but like the Gumpert on Top Gear,its does its job AMAZINGLY. Wals are workhorses.