mr. oddio, the pickup placement on your mk. III looks kind of strange to me. was that by your choice, or is that the standard placement?
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.
why-a-wal
- Thread starter f'nar f'nar
- Start date
Brad, you are very observant. The beech Wal was originally custom-made for a Wal afficianado who wanted the neck pickup to have more of a bridge bias. Combined with the beech which is a very hard wood, it adds punch and articulation... very agressive sounding but still a Wal.
I consider myself very fortunate to have been offered this instrument... and I count my blessings every time I pick it up.
I consider myself very fortunate to have been offered this instrument... and I count my blessings every time I pick it up.
oddio said:
Ehh....what are you reading ?
I have stated my findings calmly and rationally - if I wanted to be venomous, I would be writing very differently indeed!! 
I still haven't seen any negative posts here - despite the numbers voting no - and I wonder how many of the positives are going solely on pics they have seen, rather actual playing experience?
So, lots of comments about how nice they look - not many about playability, neck thickness, weight etc....?
Bruce Lindfield said:I still haven't seen any negative posts here - despite the numbers voting no - and I wonder how many of the positives are going solely on pics they have seen, rather actual playing experience?
So, lots of comments about how nice they look - not many about playability, neck thickness, weight etc....?
I've owned 6 Wals, so my "Yes" was certainly based on actual playing and gigging experience. I found the playability very good, especially on the MkIII's, but the neck profile is not going to be to everyone's taste--my one complaint there is that it'd be nice to have slightly wider spacing on the 5's. As for weight, the '88 5-string I had was very heavy, but the others have been moderate to light in weight, especially the MkIII's.
Tonally, there's definately a "Wal tone" due to the pickups and electronics that's fairly distinctive--and again, will not be to everyone's taste--but between different pieces of core wood, different facings, different fretboards, etc. there's actually some noticable variation in tone from one Wal to the next.
Mike
PS: As for having many or even most of those "yes" votes based only on photographs, I'd say that a fairly large percentage of both positive and negative opinions about *any* relatively uncommon bass expressed on TB are based on nothing more than seeing pictures--nothing unique to Wal about that...
Personally I disliked the look of the Wal basses originally... although the only ones I had seen were the early JG-style with leather scratchplates. My first Wal bass was the black Mk.II fretless 5, which weighed in a bit on the heavy side and certainly wasn't one of my favourite body styles. However I found it wonderfully playable, so much so that it replaced my Tobias as my "#1". I had never found a real connection with fretless basses up to that point, although was comfortable playing EUB (NSDB5). I have been gigging with that Wal on a regular basis over the last three years, and only recently started to use the fretted 5.
It was the playability and tone that got me "turned on" to Wal basses. It was only later that I lucked into that beautiful beech.
It was the playability and tone that got me "turned on" to Wal basses. It was only later that I lucked into that beautiful beech.
mikezimmerman said:
Well, I think you're right - but that it's worth pointing out that, as they are made in England and the big majority of posters here, are from the US, I think it's less likely than with most brands, that they've actually played one!
True enough, Bruce--they're pretty rare beasts on this side of the pond. Don't know what the availability is like in Australia, but even if the "yes"s outnumber the "no"s, the original poster is probably going to have a rather hard time finding one...
Mike
Mike
PS: As for having many or even most of those "yes" votes based only on photographs, I'd say that a fairly large percentage of both positive and negative opinions about *any* relatively uncommon bass expressed on TB are based on nothing more than seeing pictures--nothing unique to Wal about that...[/QUOTE]
I'd say 80% of the "gas" threads in this forum are based on looks. It is for me, but I've never bought without playing first, gas is just wanting, not actually getting. Back on subject, I've played 3 of Hippies Wals, and all 3 were a dream to play. I'm not sure if they'll ever be in my price range, but there isn't a bass out there that I would rather have.
I'd say 80% of the "gas" threads in this forum are based on looks. It is for me, but I've never bought without playing first, gas is just wanting, not actually getting. Back on subject, I've played 3 of Hippies Wals, and all 3 were a dream to play. I'm not sure if they'll ever be in my price range, but there isn't a bass out there that I would rather have.
Interesting opinions. Me, I own a beautiful fretless 5 (Bass of the Month 12/03, walbasses.com) and it would take a lot, to tear it away from me, after GASsing and researching fretless' for almost 10 years and what other fretless players used. Anyway, to my point: I can absolutely understand why Wals and every other bass made, including the "sacred" P and J basses aren't liked by everyone, but not being able to get a basic useable tone ? As simple as both tone knobs completely open/forward/ on 10, pickup select knob to taste. Now, when you start rolling BACK the knobs, and/or pull up on them to engage parametric boost, well then things aren't as intuitive, until you spend some time and get used to the electronics, which as most know, aren't the most straightforward, but still very useful, and boy can you get some different sounds, and an ultimate dub sound. Now necks, well they can be like women can't they ? ; ) Or men (sorry ladies)
I just think it is cool to not have another bass that is that companies "Fender on steroids"...not that there is ONE THING wrong with that either. Stingrays to me seem like they have nice sizzley highs, good low end, but a big mid cut most of the time, so I often never hear any finger to string, which to me means, I can't really hear the meat of the note, you know ? (Again, not in EVERY case, but a HUGE amount -"Blame the soundman ! ")
Wals are known to cut thru a mix quite well, and for someone like me who has had enough of sub sonic lows with no note definition, and live shows without any idea what the bass player is doing, I think a little bit of cutting musical mids is a great thing. If anyone anywhere near southeast Michigan ever wants to try my Wal, just let me know !
(please excuse my spelling !)
I just think it is cool to not have another bass that is that companies "Fender on steroids"...not that there is ONE THING wrong with that either. Stingrays to me seem like they have nice sizzley highs, good low end, but a big mid cut most of the time, so I often never hear any finger to string, which to me means, I can't really hear the meat of the note, you know ? (Again, not in EVERY case, but a HUGE amount -"Blame the soundman ! ")
Wals are known to cut thru a mix quite well, and for someone like me who has had enough of sub sonic lows with no note definition, and live shows without any idea what the bass player is doing, I think a little bit of cutting musical mids is a great thing. If anyone anywhere near southeast Michigan ever wants to try my Wal, just let me know !
(please excuse my spelling !)
