GrammeFriday

[quote name='fred72' timestamp='1398182428' post='2431308'] [sub]... looked at MarkBass, but just didn't like the aesthetic - call me fickle. [/sub] [/quote] Yeah, know what you mean. I know it's totally superficial, but this is probably the only sense in which I would agree with the OP. TC gear looks 21st century. Same with GK - all those blue, purple and red colour rings and stuff - pretty, pretty, wanty wanty. In comparison, got to admit that Markbass stuff looks a bit ... well ... 1975. A pity, really, as it sounds fantastic.

I play in a covers band - everything from old school soul to 70s and 80s funk and disco to 80s new wave and contemporary indie. I’m also in the process of getting a jazz standards band together, and I also do some solo electronic stuff - bass, laptop and looper. In other words, a very mixed bag. Currently using TC Electronic RH750 through a TC RS212 and RS210 vertical stack - see pic - and loving it. I wouldn’t say it was ‘better’ sounding than MB or any other big-name brand, but it definitely sounds great and is by far the most versatile rig I have ever owned - it can do pretty much any sound I want, which is especially useful for the covers band. It’s also SUPER loud - I have no problems at all in a band mix that includes drums, two guitars, keys, sax and two singers (one of whom has gone temporarily AWOL in the pic - slunk off to the bar, no doubt). I also really like the various bells and whistles (tuner, tubetone, compression) and the ability to store 3 presets, although I’ve tended to use these not for storing different tones but for different gain settings, so I can jump between different basses without driving the FOH crazy. (Current basses are a brace of MTDs and a Ray 5, but in the past there has also been a Sandberg California and/or a couple of Fender Jazzes at various times.) [url="http://s1333.photobucket.com/user/grammefriday/media/allstars_zpsc204cb73.jpg.html"][/url] I bought the cabs with the intention of using them in a modular way - i.e. take just the 210 to rehearsals and v small gigs, take just the 212 to pub/medium sized gigs, and only ever use the full rig for open air festivals and the like. But once I started using it I found that it sounds best when I use the full rig all the time (with volume on VERY low, natch), so that’s what I do. This may sound like overkill but actually it is an absolute doddle, as the cabs are very light and portable, and the stack has a very small footprint so I can use the full rig even on v cramped stages. As for the sound quality, it turns out that TC’s vertical stacking concept is not just marketing BS - it actually works as described. Having the 212s on the floor really does give huge amounts of fat, warm low end, and having the 210s sitting on top gives really nice snap, definition and detail. And I can actually hear what I am playing all the time. As I said above, I wouldn’t want to claim that it was better sounding than MB stuff or any other brand, but I wouldn’t swap my TC stuff for MB either. The only time I feel a bit of ‘amp envy’ is when I hear someone playing through a full Aguilar rig, as that really does have a special buttery tone that would be nice to have on tap. But whenever GAS strikes and I start toying with the idea of trading my TC stuff in for a Tone Hammer (my back and bank balance mean that a DB751 is totally out of the question) I just ask myself: does the Aguilar stuff sound so much better that you are prepared to forego all of the things you like about the TC rig (tonal flexibility, ergonomic design, built-in features, etc etc)? The answer - so far - is always ‘no’.

Text fail! 'An' should be 'someone'

Birmingham! Still waiting for an to pass the baton on to. Interested?

[quote name='bartelby' timestamp='1410521740' post='2550298'] Yeah, that review sums it up nicely... And swap the chrome plate for a gold one: [/quote] Never would have thought of that, but ooh, me likey.

+1 for Fralins, or if you want a bit more aggression, I'd say Nordstrands.

Although in my case it probably helped that hardly anyone has heard of Andrew Gouche (or MTDs, for that matter) anyway!

I totally get where you are coming from - there is something a bit naff about the whole concept of signature basses, and there is always the worry that people might think you are the kind of person who is deluded enough to believe that buying a sig bass will make you sound like or be as good as that player. (I should have listened to my mother's advice not to care what other people think!) But as previous posters have said, sometimes you've just got to bite the bullet. I bought an MTD Kingston Andrew Gouche sig 5-string quite irrespective of its signature association - in fact I had to get over my instinctive cringe about the whole sig concept to buy it. But for the money I was prepared to spend and the kind of instrumentI was after, it was simply the best bass in the shop - there was just no getting round it!

The Marcus Miller and Geddy Lee sig Jazzes seem to be well regarded round these parts.

OK, so the question - to paraphrase Bilbo - is whether we should improve music education or remove it. (FWIW, I'm with Bilbo's answer to this question.) [edit: this is in response to winterfire666's last post]

Thanks, Kerley - and to clarify once again, I am not calling you naive!! I'm just expressing doubts about the idea that kids will be better off if we only teach them practical 'real life' skills, and deny them access to stuff like music education.

[quote name='fumps' timestamp='1410350760' post='2548392'] I dont think I've ever heard of any child learning how to tie shoelaces in classes.....Parents usually teach their kids that. [/quote] You'd be surprised. My wife used to be a supply teacher and she says that a sizeable proportion of the reception year classes she taught could not even get dressed by themselves after PE, let alone tie their own shoelaces. (Although most of them have those velcro fasteners anyway nowadays!)

[quote name='kerley' timestamp='1410345072' post='2548312'] I would. Once you are past the basics of a subject the goal is solely to be tested on the subject to then get a method of scoring children against each other. While that approach probably isn't going to change why not learn and get tested on subjects that you will actually use in your adult life (mortgages/finance, politics/councils etc,.) If you wish to go further into maths, physics etc,. because it will lead to a chosen career then do that at A level and Degree levely. I spent a good amount of my time learning matrices, differentiation, integration and so on and have never come close to using it or even needing to know it exists. [/quote] I see what you (and fumps in his last post) mean, but t[size=4]he rationale that I would propose for making kids do all that abstract theoretical stuff is precisely that it has nothing to do with [/size][size=4]direct 'real world' utility at all - what we are doing (or at least trying to do!) when we teach kids theoretical stuff like pure maths is to help them develop the ability to think in an abstract way in general. Once kids have got the knack of abstract conceptual thinking, the hope is that they can then apply it to all manner of practical domains, such as evaluating different mortgages, etc..But maybe it could work the other way too - i.e. kids encounter mathematical concepts implicitly through practical activities, and if they get interested or show an aptitude then they can move on to the more abstract realm. I wonder whether any research has been done on this? Is there an educational theorist in the house? We need some help here![/size]

Need one say more? [size=4] [/size]

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1410348348' post='2548358'] I was actually referring to your gratuitous put-down at post #3. But you already knew that, didn't you? [/quote] Well, I thought you were referring to that and to flyfisher's riposte at #16, but anyway, I can only speak for myself - I do not presume to speak on behalf of other contributors, or to know whether they were offended or not. If Kerley was offended by #3 then I am genuinely sorry about that - as I said before, my arguments are aimed at ideas, not individuals. Looking back at #3 again, however, I can see that it is very abrupt and should have been expressed in a more diplomatic way. I was in a bit of a rush when I posted it, to be honest - in hindsight I should have waited until later, when I had more time to explain what I mean by "impoverished and naive". Nevertheless, I still maintain my position that an education system that only presents kids with a narrow, utilitarian set of practical skills is a very depressing prospect.

Yes, absolutely. The petition (see link in OP) is asking the government to deliver on its promise to to give every child the [b]opportunity [/b]to learn an instrument.

[quote name='Happy Jack' timestamp='1410344650' post='2548299'] Not sure how the quality of this thread is improved by the name-calling. I rather like it when people have their own opinions ... [/quote] There are no ad hominem attacks going on here as far as I can see - the criticisms are being levelled at ideas, not people. I was not offended by flyfisher's post - on the contrary, I'm enjoying the debate.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1410344554' post='2548294'] How can anyone, especially musicians, pick a fight about the concept of providing access to musical instruments and musical education whilst at school? [/quote] Beats me! Depressing, isn't it?

My argument is against a narrowly utilitarian view of education, which I think is both impoverished and naive.

No, I do not assume this - rather the contrary, in fact. I think parents, not schools, should have primary responsibility for teaching 'life skills', which I take to be everything from tying shoelaces to saying thank you to respecting cultural differences. The main function of schools should not be to train kids for the world of work by teaching them 'skills' - it is naive to think that this will translate into jobs, especially good jobs - the class system in this country will ensure that the privileged will keep themselves at the top of the heap. And the modern world is moving so fast that whatever skills we teach them will probably be obsolete by the time they enter the job market anyway. Beyond making sure that kids have adequate literacy and numeracy skills, what schools should be doing is presenting students with a sense of possibility, and inculcating in them an excitement about learning and discovering things. This is the best preparation for adult life. Teach a person to fish, etc.

[quote name='neepheid' timestamp='1410342257' post='2548254'] Universal opportunity is fine and I welcome it but I would hate to see it wasted by forcing kids who don't give a toss either way into learning an instrument. [/quote] Most kids don't give a toss about mathematics either, and many will never use most of their school maths ever again in adult life, [size=3]but who here would argue that schools shouldn't expose kids to mathematical concepts and thinking?[/size]

Squier Mustangs are ace - my 11 year old has one.

Fair point. But give me a side mounted socket every time!