• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Tim Commerford

Tim endorses Ernie Ball super slinkies. So much for 'no endorsements'. He's also verbally given oral sex to Fender on a number of ocassions on their site which is as good as an endorsement.

He does have an original tone, though. He also can lay down some killer pocket and he can lay down some great solos and fills.
 
I love his playing, but I agree it's pretty insecure for a major player to worry about the "secrets" of his tone.....plueeeze.

Insecure? He probably just doesn't want a load of douche bags copying him, I think he'd be much happier if people stopped trying to work it out and went looking for some sounds of their own. Plus you don't wanna make anything easy for some lame tribute band.

I'd never try emulate his sound, it's not that great overall, but he is for all intensive purposes in a rap band, so it's good for it to have that raw and slightly boomy and wooly sound he often has. Hid distinctive tones work really well for Rage, but I can't think of anywhere else they'd sound good.

Tim endorses Ernie Ball super slinkies. So much for 'no endorsements'. He's also verbally given oral sex to Fender on a number of ocassions on their site which is as good as an endorsement.

He does have an original tone, though. He also can lay down some killer pocket and he can lay down some great solos and fills.

Doesn't he use Lakland now anyway? Plus I've never seen the list of endorsements on the back of a pack of slinkys change whenever I've got bored enough to read them for some reason, so it wouldn't surprise me if a few were out of date.
 
Check wikipedia as well, they have a great breakdown of his rigs through the years, complete with a few shots of his pedalboard.

All I know is that he uses an Aphex Punch Factory Compressor, and that he used TWO Dunlop 105Q Bass Wahs in Audioslave. What's the point of that?
 
Insecure? He probably just doesn't want a load of douche bags copying him, I think he'd be much happier if people stopped trying to work it out and went looking for some sounds of their own. Plus you don't wanna make anything easy for some lame tribute band.

I'd never try emulate his sound, it's not that great overall, but he is for all intensive purposes in a rap band, so it's good for it to have that raw and slightly boomy and wooly sound he often has. Hid distinctive tones work really well for Rage, but I can't think of anywhere else they'd sound good.

.


I can see where you're coming from, but oh man I love his tone. In my early years of bass playing her was my tone role model, I was always trying to achieve that sound (which to my ignorance could only be acquired with the use of effects). I'm beyond that now though.
 
I love Rage to bit's by the way, really gutted I haven't got to see them (plus BBC decided not to release any footage of them at Leeds Fest despite them being the headlining band for Saturday, which is really annoying), just think that overall his sound wouldn't work for anything other then them, perhaps maybe some other heavy rap stuff. As opposed to a really nice, but very generic, P sound through and Ampeg rig, which could sound good in alot of situations, that's all I was getting at really.

Do really wanna start using some effects now though, my 2 guitarists are getting well ahead of me, I'm not using anything at the moment...
 
(plus BBC decided not to release any footage of them at Leeds Fest despite them being the headlining band for Saturday, which is really annoying)

AFAIK, they've refused permission to be filmed at every UK appearance they've made this year. Typical rock star nonsense. So much for being a band of the people, eh? If they really were, they'd have allowed their performance to be filmed and broadcast for those fans who didn't get to see them live.

They went right down in my estimation with all that rubbish.
 
AFAIK, they've refused permission to be filmed at every UK appearance they've made this year. Typical rock star nonsense. So much for being a band of the people, eh? If they really were, they'd have allowed their performance to be filmed and broadcast for those fans who didn't get to see them live.

They went right down in my estimation with all that rubbish.

Not to stray to far into the land of political weirdness...but it reminds me of when I see these semi-militant folks with Che' Guevara t-shirts and caps on.....I just can't help but point out that buying those items are helping make some capitalist wealthy.

I just love the deer in headlights look. :smug:
 
AFAIK, they've refused permission to be filmed at every UK appearance they've made this year. Typical rock star nonsense. So much for being a band of the people, eh? If they really were, they'd have allowed their performance to be filmed and broadcast for those fans who didn't get to see them live.

They went right down in my estimation with all that rubbish.

It's pretty silly that they didn't let the BBC release the footage. The BBC, the only Broadcaster in the UK who doesn't allow commercial advertising. I'd thought they'd be down with that.
 
Not to stray to far into the land of political weirdness...but it reminds me of when I see these semi-militant folks with Che' Guevara t-shirts and caps on.....I just can't help but point out that buying those items are helping make some capitalist wealthy.

I just love the deer in headlights look. :smug:

I'm pretty sure they aren't up for that, plus I'm pretty sure they're fairly anti-communist from what I've heard of their politics and their afflictions; Noam Chomsky for example. If you called Chomsky a Communist he'd laugh in your face, well actually he'd be more likely to maturely tell you why your wrong, but still!

Personally I think the only reason they ever use Che as a symbol, is more a symbol of his revolutionary attitude, not as a a way of condoning his other beliefs and his actions. I'd hope they're well read enough to know what a dick the guy ended up turning into anyway.

AFAIK, they've refused permission to be filmed at every UK appearance they've made this year. Typical rock star nonsense. So much for being a band of the people, eh? If they really were, they'd have allowed their performance to be filmed and broadcast for those fans who didn't get to see them live.

They went right down in my estimation with all that rubbish.

BBC are non-commercial, but they would have in all likelihood edited the performance a fair amount, so them not allowing it to be used makes sense. All the other bands got edited down as far as I'm aware before it was broadcast, not too sure about Metallica last night though.
 
If it weren't for the capitalist system they would have just a tiny bit of trouble doing...well...anything. (for example, booking shows, going into a studio to record, selling CD's, buying equipment, etc)


With that said, I think that their music is not so much about anti-capitalism as it is about questioning a corrupt establishment (whichever establishment that may be).
 
BBC are non-commercial, but they would have in all likelihood edited the performance a fair amount, so them not allowing it to be used makes sense.

I doubt RATM are as stupid as to give ultimatums like "you broadcast our whole show, or you get nothing", but you never know. I don't think the BBC have "edited" performances, more selected certain songs or sections of the set to broadcast. But if its ok for a band like Metallica, I don't see what the big deal is.

And RATM didn't allow their performance at Glastonbury to be broadcast either...
 
I doubt RATM are as stupid as to give ultimatums like "you broadcast our whole show, or you get nothing", but you never know. I don't think the BBC have "edited" performances, more selected certain songs or sections of the set to broadcast. But if its ok for a band like Metallica, I don't see what the big deal is.

And RATM didn't allow their performance at Glastonbury to be broadcast either...


Actually that wouldn't surprise me at all. Didn't they stand naked on stage during a show to protest censorship at one point.
 
If it weren't for the capitalist system they would have just a tiny bit of trouble doing...well...anything. (for example, booking shows, going into a studio to record, selling CD's, buying equipment, etc)


With that said, I think that their music is not so much about anti-capitalism as it is about questioning a corrupt establishment (whichever establishment that may be).

They are VERY anti-capitalist though, anyway it's kinda hard to be entirely anti-capitalist living in a capitalist system. If you live in a capitalist system but are anti-capitalist, your probably gonna have to buy things from shops you don't like at some point for example, it's hard not to play into it to some extent. All you can is do your best to be independent of that system, and try to change it to the best of your ability.

I doubt RATM are as stupid as to give ultimatums like "you broadcast our whole show, or you get nothing", but you never know. I don't think the BBC have "edited" performances, more selected certain songs or sections of the set to broadcast. But if its ok for a band like Metallica, I don't see what the big deal is.

And RATM didn't allow their performance at Glastonbury to be broadcast either...

I don't think it's so much giving ultimatums or anything, they probably just didn't want their rants left out to be honest.