I just love this overall tone and to me the slap tone is outstanding. Jason, do you think this slap tone would get lost in your crowded gospel mix?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
- Status
That's the alder/RW/60's slap tone for sure. Nothing wrong with that, but it sure doesn't sound like a 70's J Bass... because... it's not a 70's J bass
I would very much miss the top end myself, but that more middy growl is kind of cool. Jason wasn't saying that the 'bass would get lost in the mix', but rather that the top end of that bass spec (that sweet sizzle you hear when played solo... like on the LG clip I just posted) tends to totally disappear in a mix, as it does in this clip.
Again, two VERY different tones (LG and LM), and if you dug that slap tone, the more open, wide, deeper bass/sizzlier treble of the LM would probably not be your thing.
its weird, i spend most of my time gigging in the same type of setting and spent a lot of time looking for a great 70's style jazz. now after taking both out on the gig, im taking the 60's style bass out more. the 70's bass is almost like a p bass or stingray to me. one amazing sound and thats it. im finding the 60's bass to cover more ground. some larry graham, solod neck is p enough for me, and solod bridge for fusion stuff.
- Apr 3, 2003
- 35,516
- 19,953
- Disclosures
- Editor-in-Chief, Bass Gear Magazine
Just some "IMHO/IME counterpoint" I guess.
And a healthy dose of YMMV, as well.
I've been a fan of the deep lows, snappier highs, and more aggressive growl of 70's pickups/spacing, ash/maple J-basses for some time. But as Vic knows, I'm recently becoming a bit of a 60's-style alder/rosewood convert. In fact, for my personal preferences, and the material that I'm covering (classic to hard to modern rock, with a little bit of country/pop/blues/disco thrown in) and the bands that I am playing with, I am coming to realize that the 60's alder/rosewood basses are sitting in the mix better most of the time.
That being said, if I play a tune that really calls for that 70's J-bass growl, well, then, I grab a 70's style J-bass.
And as always, IME/IMHO, and YMMV.
Tom.
That's one of the reasons, as I posted earlier, that the Sadowsky ash/maple basses with singles sound so good, and are used by so many cats. You get that 'bigness down low and sizzle up top' from the ash maple spec that brings a 70's style instrument to mind, but also the fatter burp of a 60's instrument due to the 60's pickup placement in the Sadowsky J's.... pretty cool.
However, I really don't have any problem varying the tone of the LM in any direction I need to to go with hand position and the passive tone control. However, I do agree with you that the 70's spec is a bit more 'set in its ways', primarily IMO due to the less pleasing (IMO) tone of a solo'd 70's pickup position bridge pickup versus the fatter 60's.
Again, all good stuff... it is why I own all three
... a relatively legitimate 70's spec, a relatively legitimate 60's spec, and that Sadowsky 'hybrid' type spec that sits between the two. I also bought an RA (the mirror image of the Sadowsky.... 70's pickup spacing but alder body), but that just moved the tone to a place that I didn't personally dig as much (like an LG with even more space between the top end and the mids).Anyway, all great voicings for me, and I love to have these tone options. The LM does get a bit much on my more straight ahead jazz type gigs, and the LG just purrs in that context to my ear!
I just thought of something in regards to the current discussion (maybe even historically) of LG vs. LM...
My question: Is the RA only considered as the "3rd option" or a "nice to have"???
When got into A-C's I read all the previous threads and it seems like this the general thought process for current owners and guys looking to get one. I fall into this category also because my RA5 "just came about" due to opportunity and availability. But this thing is proving it's worth and the whole selling it when the LM gets here thought is slowly discipating.
My question: Is the RA only considered as the "3rd option" or a "nice to have"???
When got into A-C's I read all the previous threads and it seems like this the general thought process for current owners and guys looking to get one. I fall into this category also because my RA5 "just came about" due to opportunity and availability. But this thing is proving it's worth and the whole selling it when the LM gets here thought is slowly discipating.
That's one of the reasons, as I posted early, that the Sadowsky ash/maple basses with singles sound so good, and are used by so many cats. You get that 'bigness down low and sizzle up top' from the ash maple spec that brings a 70's style instrument to mind, but also the fatter burp of a 60's instrument due to the 60's pickup placement in the Sadowsky J's.... pretty cool.
However, I really don't have any problem varying the tone of the LM in any direction I need to to go with hand position and the passive tone control. However, I do agree with you that the 70's spec is a bit more 'set in its ways', primarily IMO due to the less pleasing (IMO) tone of a solo'd 70's pickup position bridge pickup versus the fatter 60's.
Again, all good stuff... it is why I own all three
Anyway, all great voicings for me, and I love to have these tone options. The LM does get a bit much on my more straight ahead jazz type gigs, and the LG just purrs in that context to my ear!
dont really dig that maple clack for blowing if i solo the bridge on something like the classic sad combo. ive never been able to get into the mix of ash maple/60's spacing regardless of who made it. sad,atelier,japanese 75 reissues. probably because none of my bass influences were using it and my ear isnt used to it.
That is quite a unique spec. As I posted above, it kind of sat in a different tonal space again versus the LM and the LG... the less big and warmer low end of the LG (versus that big, wide ash/maple low end of the LM), but a very sweet alder/maple top end that was much more sizzly than the my LG.... the RA has quite a bit of space between the upper treble and the mids (versus the grindy, ganky upper mid bump in a 70's style instrument).
The RA was an interesting voice, but had very little similarity with the LM to my ear... more like an LG with a more pure sizzle up top. Not my thing, but a very nice tone. Hard to put your finger on that tone though... it doesn't bring to mind classic recordings or a 'classic J tone' to me (even though there were Fenders made with that spec in the early 70's from what I understand).
Anyway, it will be clear to you when you A/B your RA and your LM... quite different, if mine were representative.
Wow, that seems harsh. In fact, I would argue this is precisely what Talkbass is about, and why I'm posting my alternative opinions to yours on the matter.
+1 The Sadowsky has very little 'Fender' in its tone, and is something quite different. It really does sound like a 'Sadowsky', which I dig as a quite different J type voicing (but only with the optional single coils... really don't dig that spec with the more scooped and deep and sizzly HC's that most have in those basses)!
i think because it kind of a bastard spec. alder,maple,70's spacing was only offered for a very short time before switching over to ash until 82/83. in playing of old fenders, thats my least favorite sounding era of basses.
Wow, that seems harsh. In fact, I would argue this is precisely what Talkbass is about, and why I'm posting my alternative opinions to yours on the matter.
I'm more interested in trying to describe the tone versus 'I like this and I like that'. No big deal, and didn't mean it to sound 'harsh', but the idea that some prefer a 60's spec and some prefer a 70's spec is kind of, well, a 'duh' to me, especially given very different playing styles and gig contexts.
But I don't think faithfulness to a spec is the point... at least it's not my point.That's the alder/RW/60's slap tone for sure. Nothing wrong with that, but it sure doesn't sound like a 70's J Bass... because... it's not a 70's J bass
Exactly. This is all I'm saying. I'm just trying to point out that you don't necessarily have to fall into lockstep and assume that if you're playing funk/slap, you HAVE to go for the 70's spec.
I DO understand that, but I don't think you can describe tone in absolute terms, and literally assume an LM/LG will sound the same, or work the same for everybody based strictly on your results, because of the crux of my point, which is the influence of our fingers.
I think some of the recent posts by others has already validated this.
vision
It's all about the groove!
- Feb 25, 2005
- 3,988
- 618
- 47
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD Basses, La Bella Strings, and 64 Audio IEMs
That sounds really good (absolutely killer playing!) but that's actually exactly what I'm talking about - during the slap sections there is a "sheen" to the pops that reminds me of my Celinder - that sheen gets totally buried in the mix on my gospel gigs.
vision
It's all about the groove!
- Feb 25, 2005
- 3,988
- 618
- 47
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: MTD Basses, La Bella Strings, and 64 Audio IEMs
- Status
