cheddatom

I have no problem drumming quietly, if that's what's appropriate for the gig. Lots of people blaming drummers - I'd rather blame poor communication and lack of compromise within your band, which isn't necessarily the drummers' fault Anyway, IME it's more likely that the guitarist wants to hear some of the top end from his amp, but he's standing with it pointing at his arse, and really close too, so to hear himself he has to turn up loud

I see what you mean. Well, I'd try it into the effects return of your amp, see if you prefer that sound

People are weird. Some people on here have rejected amps because to get the sound they wanted, they had to have X control in a position other than 12 o'clock! EDIT: Sorry, that wasn't supposed to sound as harsh as it did! My point was just that people shouldn't be afraid to use the controls on their gear

Yeh I don't think you need intent E.G my dishwasher makes a very musical beat

It's a pre-amp. Your amp will have a pre-amp built in, and you would normally put your effects into that, so I would have it at the end of the chain. I'm a bit surprised that you want a behringer pre-amp for an "ampegey sound" when you have an ampeg amp?

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1445271446' post='2890125'] I don't think the sound needs to be repeated to be musical: consider the sound made by a professional cellist playing a single note, compared to the sound of me trying to do the same. Of course there's repetition on a micro level, as the waveforms repeat (and vary). [/quote] One note droning on without any variation wouldn't be musical IMO, no matter how nice it sounds.

[quote name='elephantgrey' timestamp='1445250532' post='2889871'] I'd say thus video sums up if a note is musical or not [media]http://youtu.be/cyW5z-M2yzw[/media] [/quote] Sorry, i can't watch at the moment but will try to check it out later I suppose what I was saying is that any noise with even the slightest amount of repetition can sound musical. Without any repetition it's just a sound. Even if it's a musical note played on a musical instrument, if it's just one note, how is that music without any repetition or rhythm to it? It doesn't become musical until either a rhythm, or some more notes are introduced.

[quote name='leftybassman392' timestamp='1445169828' post='2889228'] ...I'm not asking about sequences of sounds; I'm asking about individual sounds considered in isolation... [/quote] Surely any single sound cannot be musical, unless it is repeated? My boiler and dishwasher make great beats. The resonance in the lift at my mate's flat creates a very relaxing harmony which seems to cycle. Almost everything is musical if you're listening, but it has to be more than just a short sound with no repetition.

I would just get so bored using the same few sounds all night long! Without pedals, you only have your plucking/picking style, and your pre-amp controls to change your sound. Although you can do a lot with just these, it probably amounts to 10 sounds at the most. If you add 10 pedals to the mix you've increased the number of possible sounds massively!

I've see an originals band using a bucket

what's the problem with a heavy bass anyway? If you've got a good strap and good posture you should be fine (excluding anyone with serious injuries etc)

Surely an EQ pedal would sort this out

I like the home made look! Just not the price

I used to rehearse with my kick drum mic'd up, and I was quite light with my right foot, but it didn't matter. All the gigs we played had the kit and the soundman to cater to me. It's only when I started playing with a folk band in pubs without a big PA that I realised just how quiet my kick was in comparison to the rest of the kit, and that made me re-evaluate my technique. Obviously that's just my opinion and all drummers are different, I'm not saying anyone's wrong for having a kick much quieter than their snare, it's just it presents this technical problem In your example Stevie, I reckon everyone would turn down a bit if the cymbals and snare were at a similar level (or quieter) to the (un-mic'd) kick drum, in which case it would no longer be drowned out.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1444738927' post='2885447'] Not really... IME. I don't know any good bands with bad drummers. And good drummers are always in demand. [/quote] some bands have no drummer at all! If you're just talking about pub rock, then a good drummer is pretty essential, arguably more so than any of the other musicians. If you're talking about music in general, then sometimes you can make do with "lesser" players, provided they know their place. I suppose "knowing your place" is actually a more important musical skill than technical "chops".

my kick drum's fairly dead but I learned to whack it harder. For most music modern the bass drum should be the loudest instrument in the kit, and IMO that should be achieved acoustically before you start micing anything up EDIT: A heavier beater can help!

I don't see much practical use for them other than volume swells. A tuner should give you a mute for changing basses. If you want different volume levels for different passages of songs, I would prefer to know that I've got it right every time, rather than hoping that I've got the volume pedal in the right position. I've used pedals like the LS-2 for this in the past

done

Is it just the kick drum that's not cutting through enough? Or the whole kit? I see a lot of drummers who rely on the PA/monitors to get volume out of their kick drum. IMHO this is bad technique

It depends on the music/song doesn't it. Sometimes you can get away with a bad drummer, if the drums aren't that important. I was at a wedding recently. The band were upstairs, and apart from the vocals, un-mic'd. Sax, guitar, bass, drums, singer. The drummer was going easy on the bass drum, and without a mic it was almost inaudible, but that didn't matter at all. He was simply providing a bit of percussion over the top of the incredible bassist who was essentially providing the beat. I just wanted to watch the band all night it was so good

I've got one busy originals bands (about 8 gigs a month) and 3 less busy originals bands, a full time job, and a fledgling recording studio. I like to be busy though! Using the calendar on my phone and keeping good communications with everyone makes it all pretty easy.

The album version is great but I came accross this recently and it definitely took my breath away [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKequsKpix0[/media]

The OP mentions the context of recording. Although in a live situation, the "best" sounding gear probably isn't required, in a recording situation, it definitely is. Whether that's a £100 guitar off ebay, or a £2000 acoustic Are we just abandoning this aspect of the OP? It's just recorded sound interests me much more than live

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1442330284' post='2866091'] No, but you've used the term "unjustifiable". As in, “[i]I [/i][color=#000000][i]think it's entirely unjustifiable today to spend £2,000 on an acoustic guitar[/i]”.[/color] [color=#000000]I'm intrigued to know: if I wanted to spend £2k on an acoustic guitar (I don't, but bear with me), in what way should I be able to justify it, and to whom would I need to do so?[/color] [/quote] Like I said earlier, loads of acoustics are great. However, the Gibson I was talking about has a load more low end. If you need a load more low end for the studio (could get away with EQ at a gig if you wanted) then the justification for spending £2K is obvious. Furthermore, the fact that I managed to point this out to Milty who hadn't realised that you could get more low end out of this guitar (versus a Faith) justifies all of our discussions about which gear is "better" and more importantly, why.