• 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.

What happened to WAL?

oddio said:
...in many cases you will use the balance knob more as your tone control... (Wal players will understand this statement).
Ummm, I'd say this is very universally understood. At least, I've always played this way... if for no other reason than because only within the last couple years did I get into the quality class where the EQ's were clean enough to actually use. Before then, it was active Fender stuff and similar... nice tone (if you get a "good one"), but low quality hissy preamps. It's all about the pan pot first, dude. :)
 
Ummm. Assume nothing, dude. :hmm:

I'm certain it is "universally understood" that the balance control alters tone by combining the pickups in one way or another. Agreed.

Other than Wal, I personally haven't run into too many basses that provide a seperate tone control for each pickup (Alembic, as mentioned, or add your favourite). In this case the balance provides a bit more functionality.
 
vics said:
They're pretty darn heavy. I know, I know, but I've played lotsa' basses lighter with just as much life or maybe even more.

I found this thread after a recent comment about JJ Burnel's Wal that he used around the time of thegospelaccordingtothemeninblack, and after seeing a video of him wielding the creature. I don't know what it was about it, but that thing is a really substantial, heavy looking bass, not something I think I'd want to carry around for long. It also reminds me of a similar comment about Wals on the Sisters of Mercy's gear page near the bottom (quite an interesting page in itself IMHO, particularly Adam's warning about the coolness of ear protection :eek: )

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to slag off Wals at all, I just think that a lot of people must find their sound extremely desirable in order to deal with the weight issue. :D

Chris.
 
cbh said:
I just think that a lot of people must find their sound extremely desirable in order to deal with the weight issue.

Chris, IMHO you're absolutely correct about the tone.

Where weight is concerned, there's quite a variation between instruments. Much of this is due to the wood choices. I have read that Pete's choice of mahogany core type and density is very specific for fretless basses for example. The addition of coffee table woods and LEDs (and MIDI electronics on a few older ones) can certainly add to that.

As Wal basses go, my two beauties are considered by some to be the least desirable, being finished in black poly and without fancy wood tops. The black poly-finished instruments are solid mahogany and tend to be just a little brighter, but still retain all of that wonderful Wal sound. The upside is that both are under ten pounds.

To put everything in perspective, my Mach II fretless five at 9.5 lbs weighs about the same as my California-crafted Tobias Signature five and is almost 3 pounds less than my Warwick Streamer Stage II four. My Mach I fretted four at just under 8.5 lbs weighs less than my '61 Precision, my Sterling black onyx and all of my Warwicks, excepting an Infinity 2000LTD four-stringer.

At the end of the day, there are some heavy Wal basses out there, but I don't think it's safe to generalize. Unfortunately, due to the scarcity here it's difficult to try before you buy. Still, anyone looking at the purchase of a used one would do well to ask first about the weight.

Peace.
 
cbh said:
I found this thread after a recent comment about JJ Burnel's Wal that he used around the time of thegospelaccordingtothemeninblack, and after seeing a video of him wielding the creature. I don't know what it was about it, but that thing is a really substantial, heavy looking bass, not something I think I'd want to carry around for long. It also reminds me of a similar comment about Wals on the Sisters of Mercy's gear page near the bottom

Whenever I tried them at the Bass Centre in London, they were heavy, but this wasn't a problem for me so much as the overall "chunkiness"! ;)

So - I've owned heavier basses - but the Wals I tried just felt uncomfortable - neck too thick, front to back and awkward access to the upper reaches of the fretboard.

So, picking up my Tobias Classic (which is probably about the same weight) there is a huge contrast in playability and comfort - access to all the fingerboard etc.

Of course this kind of thing involves a certain amount of personal preference - some people like really chunky P basses with high action, that in my hands, feel almost unplayable - but my view is : why make it hard for yourself?
 
I think it's worth pointing out as there seems to be a lot of awe and admiration about Wals here from US-based posters and as you say, people are going to struggle to find them, so will have little chance of trying before they buy.

But I think that if any type of bass must be tried beforehand it is a Wal. Most other basses I could get by with and play - but this was the most disappointing (for me) "big name" bass I have tried - but I suppose the correct description is most "ideosyncratic" - as they obviously suit some people - but I know I would be struggling to play one of these and get any sort of sound I liked.
 
I really love my Wal. But then again as others have said, you either really like them or really hate them. Mine is a Mach II "Geddy Lee" style (transparent red, mahogany core, maple top, black poly neck, ebony fretboard) and it weighs in at around 9.5 + pounds or so. Not overly light, but not real heavy either (I used to have an '82 G&L L2K that was mahogany and weighed 12 pounds). I use a Comfort Strapp with mine so the weight is easy for some of my 3+ hour gigs.

I can get a lot of different tones from mine, but the controls do take a while to master. Wal tone is not very "Fendery" and traditional sounding, but that is what I like about it.
 
I've yet to find anything that satisfies my ear like a Wal, which explains why #9 is on the way. Each of my instruments has unique sonic and visual characteristics while (or shall I say "whilst") remaining characteristically Wal. Indeed the tone is not for everyone...it is very clear, thick and defined with a signature mid-range "brick between the eyes" tone. As a fingerstyle bass, it is second to none.

I have custom ordered an number of other very high-end basses over the past few years...the best one of the bunch got about two hours of playing time before being auctioned to the highest bidder...most lasted about 10 minutes.

I truly wish that I could find another bass that matched Wal...I'm getting tired of waiting 2+ years for my new additions!
 
Seems there's quite a few committed Wal fans around! You've all got me intrigued now; anybody got any suggestions of recordings that show off what a Wal sounds like to good effect? The only one I have at present is The Stranglers' "Bear Cage" which I don't think shows off the bass line particularly well. And, although I know that staged videos aren't necessarily anything to go by, I found it interesting that JJ was playing it with his fingers when he normally seemed to be a plectrum user on the Fenders, which I guess says something about the Wal's sound.

Chris.
 
cbh said:
The only one I have at present is The Stranglers' "Bear Cage" which I don't think shows off the bass line particularly well. And, although I know that staged videos aren't necessarily anything to go by, I found it interesting that JJ was playing it with his fingers when he normally seemed to be a plectrum user on the Fenders, which I guess says something about the Wal's sound.

he played it with a pick on the record-
I think the Wal was also on "who wants the world"- it doesn't sound like the P bass he's playing in the video.

I think he played the Wal fingerstyle on "turn the centuries, turn" on the Gospelaccordingtothemeniniblack.

for Justin Chancellor's Wal tone with a pick check out Tool's "Schism".
 
Thanks, chaps. BSSM is something I feel my collection is missing so I'll be happy to go and nab a copy of that. I'm still not sure if I'm ready to expose myself to thegospelaccordingtothemeninblack again but I'll try to dig out my CD (I think it's at my father-in-law's at the moment) and frazzle my brain with it. I may never be the same again... :eek:

Edit: is thegospel...etc the first (and perhaps only) "progressive punk" album out there? Did any good ever come of it? :D (It certainly heralded a lot of weird times for the band, apparently)

Chris.
 
I have a fondness for Gospelaccordingto..... - the quintessential "commercially disastrous experimental concept album":D
it's been mentioned in a few magazines as an underrated lost classic.

I actually bought it around 1994 or so because of Bass Player magazine's "unsung heroes" article listing this album as an example of JJ's playing (I had Rattus, Black & white, No more heroes + Feline already)

Hugh Cornwell's "song stories" book has some great stuff about the making of this album- eg. "Manna machine" sounding like a large freezer with food inside.
 
Of course there is the obvious... you can hear Wal on a few Rush albums (or CDs if you prefer): Power Windows, Hold Your Fire, Presto and Roll the Bones.

If you listen to progressive material Colin Edwin plays a mean Wal fretless on all of the Porcupine Tree CDs. Check the Multimedia page on Invalid Link Removed. Nice Wal fretless tones on the Chloroform instrumental that you can download there.

Also, on the main page you can click on the album cover on the right where is says "Listen to In Absentia". Great Stuff.

Enjoy!
 
The Mock Turtle Regulator said:
I have a fondness for Gospelaccordingto..... - the quintessential "commercially disastrous experimental concept album":D
it's been mentioned in a few magazines as an underrated lost classic.

I actually bought it around 1994 or so because of Bass Player magazine's "unsung heroes" article listing this album as an example of JJ's playing (I had Rattus, Black & white, No more heroes + Feline already)

Hugh Cornwell's "song stories" book has some great stuff about the making of this album- eg. "Manna machine" sounding like a large freezer with food inside.

I finally found the album, and suddenly feel at a bit of a loss as to why I didn't like it at the time. I suppose I was in more of a punk mood and with that one they were trying to out-prog King Crimson, arguably with quite a bit of success.

I really do like the bass sound on a lot of the tracks; did JJ use a Wal throughout? (And just out of curiosity, do you know who's singing on Four Horsemen? It's not JJ or Hugh; it sounds like the same reedy vocal from Peasant in the Big Sh**ty. Dave, maybe?)

Anyway, since it's fast becoming my new favourite album I think I'll annoy the missus with it now. :D

Chris.
 
cbh said:
I really do like the bass sound on a lot of the tracks; did JJ use a Wal throughout?

I think so- he's playing it either fingerstyle or thumb-plucking on Turn the centuries turn,

(And just out of curiosity, do you know who's singing on Four Horsemen? It's not JJ or Hugh; it sounds like the same reedy vocal from Peasant in the Big Sh**ty. Dave, maybe?)

yeah, probably Dave- also I think that's him on "Genetix" on The Raven.
the Hugh Cornwell book "Song by song" (not "Song stories"- that's the XTC book :o ) says a few things about who sang on what.


I've been listening to an excellent live recording of Simple Minds from 1984, and I'm pretty sure Derek Forbes used fretted and fretless Wal's for most of it (I think his old P bass is in use on Big sleep and Book of brilliant things- both slap songs, strangely enough)

the version of "Glittering Prize" shows off the Wal tone with a pick quite well-
Invalid Link Removed
Idisk>simple minds audio>Irvington may 27 1984