Dingus

It can be a little bit difficult to judge just how much difference quartersawing makes to the sound of a bass in so much as, because it's a relatively expensive way of manufacturing a neck, it tends to be found on more upmarket , high quality basses that tend to sound pretty good anyway, if you see what I mean . Generally speaking though , expert opinion is pretty much unanimously in favour of the idea that the stiffer a bass neck , the better the sound in terms of eveness in reducing deadspots ect and overall dynamic projection of the notes . Mica Wickersham at Alembic, for example, once told me that of all the possible extra cost upgrades that you can pick as options on their basses, the one that has the most marked influence on the sound of the final bass is getting ebony laminates in the neck , in place of the usual pupleheart wood ones they use as standard, because they make for a much stiffer neck overall and give very tangible benefits in terms of sound. Quartersawn is much stiffer than flatsawn in any instance and so should give some tonal benfits as a result . In the long-term , there are so many factors that can effect whether a bass neck stays true or develops a twist , but quartersawing probably helps minimise the risk a bit . The Yamaha BB2024X has got a laminated quartersawn neck of maple with mahogany stringers and it feels so stiff and rigid that it's almost as if it's made out of stone, and I'm sure that it must contribute something to the remarkable sound of those basses, but , once again, there is so many other quality design features on that model that it is a synergy of many factors that make them sound so good in the final analysis .

I rate Richard Bona as one of the best players in the World at the moment, and I wouldn't lump him in with the examples of solo playing we have seen so far in so much as he is essentially acting as an accompanist to his own singing. His style and choices make perfect sense, and the final result is beautiful.

[quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1381439201' post='2239270'] You're all right. He stinks. What was I thinking? This might be more to everyone's liking. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn2Fj3I-hkw[/media] [/quote] Thats a great bassline played ( contrary to what I have read written by some people on Basschat in the past) by a very capable bass player in Michael Anthony . It's a superb song , and it wouldn't be the same without that bass part. I have nothing at all against flamboyant or busy bass playing , providing it sounds good and works well within the wider musical context, but for my taste the examples of "virtuosity" in this thread all fall on their face because they all fail to be of any real interest , and ultimately just plain don't sound good. There is nothing in the music that really says anything except" I am doing something unusual and technically challenging that you don't usually hear on the bass guitar", and that has a very limited appeal. So what if your playing arrangements of E.L.P songs by two handed tapping on a six sting bass? You could make things even harder for yourself by strapping both hands behind your back and play them on a kazoo strategically gaffer taped onto your sphincter whilst you stand on your head and it still wouldn't be very interesting from a musical perspective ( although I have to admit, it would be quite a gymnastic achievement ).

[quote name='chaypup' timestamp='1381397636' post='2238390'] Which Whitchurch? [/quote] Apparently not the charming suburb of Cardiff.

Technology has developed in way which now hands the advantage to the consumer in so much as if they can't access the music in a reasonably affordable way or for free they have the option to access most music illegally . People like Thom Yorke are up in arms at the injustice of all this to the artists , but isn't it interesting how no one in the industry , artists included , was protesting with the same kind of indignance when the shoe was on the other foot and they had a virtual monopoly that extorted and exploited the consumer.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381427275' post='2239042'] The crux of your post I can agree with and indeed I have done so from the start (read my first post) but your personal opinion of the band is stopping any subjectivity in your overall argument, which is a shame. I suppose it would be convenient to treat that initial post of yours as an attempt at humour now you've been offered multiple evidence to the contrary! [/quote] I'm not entirely sure what you mean here , but, in any case , I can assure you that I do not take Radiohead as seriously as they appear to take themselves.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381425772' post='2239026'] 'Better'? 'Better' according to who? It's just that you seem to be confusing your own personal opinion of the band with the millions and millions of people globally that would disagree with your notion that the music they've been making since 1997 has gotten somehow worse, that is if we're going off of album sales, sold out arenas and festival bookings etc. The reality is that it's simply evolved into something you either don't like or perhaps don't understand. I get that Radiohead's albums post '97 are like marmite, especially stuff like Kid A that polarises opinion amongst people that don't like or 'get' their move into electronica (so is Coldplay's new music and direction by the way amongst older fans, which is why it's tremendously ironic you used them as an example). But quite why Radiohead should be 'populist' is beyond me. Is that what bands have to do once they've had initial success? And according to who? Your original quote without taking it out of context read like this: Which without question is a falsity isn't it? You are trying to pass off your personal opinion in support of an argument that is completely flawed. [/quote] Millions of people would disagree with me about all kinds of things, but good taste and good judgement have never neccesarilly been a the prerogative of the masses. Your quote is in fact out of context because my original comment is meant to be a humourous way of pointing to the fact that we all agree on , i.e that after O.K Computer the band made a very deliberate effort to make uncommercial , "difficult" -sounding music. That is significant in so much as Thom Yorke is railing against Spotify and the music industry in general , whilst at the same time he has done all he can to undermine that industry's ( which put him in his exalted position in the first place ) legitmate right to make a profit out of the artists it nurtures. By implication then , he shouldn't be surprised if that industry then takes whatever oppotunities are left to try and remain profitable , and he has no right to complain if he finds that unpalatable. .

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1381419496' post='2238861'] You can't pin that phenomenon entirely on poor old Victor though, can you? His playing isn't my kind of thing either, but I'm sure plenty of other bass virtuosos have inspired a number of poor imitations. After all, how many blues jams over the last 40-odd years have been dogged by guitarists who thought their guitar solo was an opportunity to rehash Hendrix's rendition of [i]The Star-Spangled Banner[/i] into a couple of 12-bar turnarounds? (You might have a point though...I did, not so long ago, see a guy who thought it would be incredibly clever to play a slap bass solo over a slow 12-bar. It wasn't.) [/quote] You are absolutely right that Vic is by no means the first virtuoso player to inspire poor imitation , and he isn't personally responsible for them , Just let me make it clear, I think Victor is a gifted player with exceptional ability, but I am questioning the direction he has taken that talent in .

Victor seems like a lovely bloke, and I really admire his committment to music education and travelling the globe showing people how he does what he does, but his playing has never been to my taste. He has got some incredible skills, but he has never found a proper outlet for those talents, in my opinion , and once you strip away the flash , what is really left? His playing leaves me cold, I'm sorry to say, but the thousands of bad imitators he has inspired drive me crazy! A generation of young bass players have grown up thinking that the point of playing the bass is to try and find any excuse to try and execute a kind of palm-muted double thump classical extravaganza. Badly.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381413408' post='2238712'] Radiohead aren't motivated by money. They're not motivated by selling as many records as possible. If they were, they'd have "done a coldplay". They're motivated by making the records that they want to make. I think its you that is unwilling to see what is being said. [/quote] I know that, ostensibly at least, they are not motivated by money or by courting record sales ( although it has to be said , it is easy not be motivated by money if you have already got lots of it) . That is the whole point of what I am saying: their music would probably be a lot better if they were motivated by those things ! Instead they have spent over a decade churning out all kinds of turgid rubbish in the name of art . Populism has an important role in pop music for a very good reason. Radiohead have indeed made the records they wanted to make , and by and large they are not very good records .

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1381411518' post='2238677'] What utter nonsense. Kid A went platinum in it's first week of release in the Uk, if that's a failure in any way shape or form I'd surely like to fail. In Rainbows sold 3m copies in it's first year. I for one would be extremely happy to be making music that for filled me and had such commercial success. Thank goodness that Radiohead didn't take the route you suggest, the last thing we need is another Coldplay album [/quote] [quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381411590' post='2238678'] The start part of this post is definitely true but come on, bands are presented in all sorts of ways by label PR. The reality is never presented properly and I would be the first to agree that Thom owes his success to the majors. And with that aside, the stats stack against your argument massively. As has already been pointed out to you Radiohead are not a commercial or a relative commercial failure, they have been masters of their own destinies of late and have actively chosen to distribute their own music in their own way - having been hugely successful either way. Your Coldplay simile made me laugh too, their success hinged on the fact that Radiohead had opened numerous doors that led to the success of bands like Muse and Coldplay to walk through. Their decision to alter their approach to music was a conscious effort to evolve their music without the pressure of the fans of their previous work pressing for more of the same, and still they proved successful. Sounds more like you take issue with the band than anything else, reminiscent of the Beatles thread actually... refusing facts staring the critics in the face. [/quote] [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381412083' post='2238684'] They didn't want to make Dark Side Of The Moon. They wanted to make Kid A, Amnesiac, In Rainbows, etc. Going down a path they didn't want to go down just so that they could sell 10,000,000 records instead of 2,000,000 would almost certainly have led to the band splitting up. They just don't want to be that band, and in plenty of interviews at the time they made it clear that they all felt they really needed to move on. Making the music you want to make is being "purposefully obtuse" is it? Everyone knows the record industry treats artists badly. Why aren't Radiohead allowed to voice that opinion? Have you got any examples of Radiohead's "cynical exploitation" of their fans or have you just made that up? They sell records at a very reasonable price ("King Of Limbs" was £6, I think). They gave "In Rainbows" away. Thats about as far away from exploitation as you can get. And now we come to the crux of it: you just don't like Radiohead. Thats cool, but don't pretend that just because you couldn't get into Kid A that Radiohead are---by any measure---a failure. I don't even listen to them all that often but there is absolutely no denying that they are one of the most successful stories of the last fifteen years. [/quote] You all are unable or unwilling to see what I am saying to you . I could( and probably will when I an so hung-over) wax lyrical to you about how and why Radiohead and their music are so dreadful , but that aside, the simple fact is that than un-commericial-sounding songs are, well, ... just not as commercial! They have lost their crossover, mainstream appeal and it that which gives massive sales, and massive sales means more money for everybody. The rest is hyperbole.

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381395779' post='2238358'] It sounds like you've listened to a bit of the band, read a bit about the band and then have gone and made some sweeping and misinformed conclusions about the band. I'm not sure which yardstick you've chosen to measure the success of Radiohead post-OK Computer but I think you're misinformed on the subject and if you're suggesting Radiohead became some sort of commercial failure then you're completely off-target. 'Maverick independent releases'? When did EMI become a maverick independent label? [/quote] "Maverick independent release" is how the band present their recordings to the public , a stance which is undermined if they are relying on EMI. You don't seem to grasp the difference between commercia faliure and relative commercial faliure. The yardstick by which I am measuring the success of Radiohead post-OK Computer is the populist appeal of their music, and it has very little of that .

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381392748' post='2238297'] "The majority of the sales were band-to-fan. Financially, it [The King Of Limbs] was probably the most successful record they've ever made, or pretty close. In a traditional deal, the record company takes the majority of the money."---Chris Hufford (Radiohead's manager). Why would Radiohead want to just recycle the same old cliches or "exploit the market"? They're a multi-million selling millionaire rock band who have complete and utter artistic control over their music. They do what they want and yet they still sell out huge tours, get great reviews, are regularly acclaimed as one of the best artists of all time, and make just as much money as they ever did. Stupid, stupid Radiohead. [/quote] The point I am trying to make to you is that , although direct sales are usually proportionately more lucrative in terms of the percentage returned to the band, the trade-off is that ultuimately the band sell a smaller number of records . If Radiohead had been cajoled into making an album that sold in huge quantities over a prolonged period [i]a la[/i] Dark Side Of The Moon they would have made more even after the record company took their cut, as well as enjoyed all the periforal benefits of that mainstream success . Radiohead may have plenty of money but they could have made much more . They decided they wanted to make an artistic statement by being purposefully obtuse , in the full knowledge that they were already established enough to take a huge audience with them . Without the conventional music industry they would never have established that audience , so in a certain sense it is inconsistant with the truth, to put it diplomatically, for them to be so dismissive of that industry. It is also more than a little disingenuous to portray themselves as taking a stance against exploitation when, if it suits their own ends, they are not averse to cynical exploitation both of their fans and the industry which has nurtured them . Unless you are a hardcore Radiohead afficianado, all their records since O.K Computer are fairly impenetrable and unlikely to be familiar to you . Like so many bands, having a loyal fan base who are receptive to whatever they do has allowed them to get lost in a mire of self indulgence and still survive .

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381324233' post='2237569'] They don't need to. They've got to the point where they can self-finance a record and sell it directly to their fanbase. They sold something like 350,000 mp3 copies of King Of Limbs directly from their website. By cutting out the middleman they're in a much stronger financial position than they ever were. [/quote] I don't doubt for a second that Radiohead's studied anti-establihment stance is underpinned by the knowledge that they are financially secure ( i.e rich) . I cannot help but make the observation, however, that the quality of their music has suffered terribly as a result of this decision to eschew the commercial machine of the mainstream music business. The simple fact is that the wider public want songs like Creep and Fake Plastic Trees that they can sing along to as they create their own treasured Glastonbury memories. [quote name='risingson' timestamp='1381331225' post='2237745'] Kid A was massively successful albeit in a different way and Hail To the Thief sold insane quantities in the U.S and U.K. In Rainbows, snap. So this is quite far from being true. [/quote] Those records may have sold impressively for maverick independent releases , but they have failed to capitalise on the success Radiohead had in the mid to late 1990's when they were on the verge of becoming one of the most commercially successful bands in the World . In that context , subsequent sales have in fact been dissappointing . The exploits of bands like Coldplay in the interim period only goes to show the size of the potential market for navel gazing quasi -Indie bands with a knack for recycling tired old cliches. Radiohead failed to exploit the market when they had a chance , instead deciding to plough their own furrow, and have paid the price in terms comparatively modest sales. They still shift a lot of records by most standards , but they could have shifted a lot more had they not become so enamoured of their own genius and hell bent on avoiding becoming exploited by at the hands of a scurrilous. music industry that was conspiring to make them multi millionaires by encouraging them to serenade this World's dissaffected souls with their own distinctive brand of miserablist Indie power ballads . On the wider issue of Spotify , I really don't know how they allocate and distribute royalties to artists , but I am an avid consumer of the infinite variety and choice afforded by the service it provides. £10 a month is an incredible bargain when consider what you get in return, and I would cheerfully pay double that if it meant that this system of providing music could be maintained and even expanded further. Would anyone really want to go back to the old days when you risked spending money on C.D's on the off chance you might like them, and were frequently left pondering the myriad of better uses the money you just spent might have been put to after you realised you had bought yet another dissappointing album ?

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381323714' post='2237557'] Are you joking? [/quote] Yes , I'm joking . Radiohead couldn't really write another hit .

[quote name='fretmeister' timestamp='1381321892' post='2237508'] I love the service, but the amount they pay to the artists is appalling. Frank Gambale recently did a breakdown of his earnings from it and 17,000 plays of one of his songs earned him... 15 cents. That's it. 0.0008 cents per play. [/quote] To be honest , that's 15 cents that Frank Gambale might not have otherwise . Like You Tube , there are periphoral benefits for artists who are on Spotify even if the royalties are negligable . Maybe technology has progressed to the extent that artists can't realistically expect the same degree of protection by copyright and being payed for use of their work in the same way as they are used to . In reality, that is what has already happened , and you can see why artists are upset about it , but ultimately , that horse has already bolted .

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1381321912' post='2237510'] From last Thursday's gig with my new bass: [/quote] That bass looks fantastic ( and it suits you ) . I quite fancy a four string one of those myself .

[quote name='seashell' timestamp='1381321682' post='2237506'] It's glittery, so it's a girlie version! [/quote] Kind of like a feminine Phil Lynott, then . I can see where you are coming from in a fashion sense, but it reminds me of going to local discos as a youth in the late '70's and early 80's where the studded versions were used to inflict serious wounds at the end of the evening . I hope you refraining from any such behaviour, Shelly , no matter how much the guitarist is annoying you ( although, on reflection , I suppose there is a limit to how damage a glittery wristband can do ) .

[quote name='seashell' timestamp='1381321233' post='2237495'] Me and drummer taking things very seriously. Such a tight rhythm section - both looking in different directions! [/quote] Is that a studded wristband? Surely not?

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381318861' post='2237432'] Well spotted! [/quote] ( no pun intended)

[quote name='Conan' timestamp='1381318794' post='2237430'] Well, technically a corpse is already dead - so you can't have (or be) a "dying corpse"... I've never used Spotify though, so can't comment on that bit. [/quote] Well spotted!

I love Spotify . I am less keen on Thom Yorke and Radiohead. I don't know what he is getting so worked up about, to be honest with you . The truth is that no one has actually listened to any of his records since O.K Computer , so I think his artistic integrity is quite safe . Maybe his earnings are not quite as secure, but the answer is in his own hands , i.e make some hit records .

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1381315284' post='2237334'] Looks like they already did - in 1983. [url="http://gitarion.pl/galeria/basowe/fender_precision_elite_II/fender_precision_elite_II.html"]http://gitarion.pl/g...n_elite_II.html[/url] [/quote] I was thinking about these as I typed my post by virtue of the fact that one of my mates had one back in those days . They were excellent basses , although the micro tuning bridge wasn't a good idea in retrospect . I seem to remember the neck was very Jazz Bass- like. A passive version would be a great addition to the current Fender line .

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1381315016' post='2237324'] I suppose it's because the Jazz already has the two-pickup knobs and control plate. A Precision version would need to be adapted from the single vol and tone configuration. A cost consideration, basically. Fender bodging up basses from the old parts bin again, as you say. But thinking about it, the routing is different for the two P pickups anway, so... I don't know is the short answer. [/quote] I think the reasoning is that the Jazz is enduringly popular , so why not offer it with a different twist i.e as a PJ ,but the reality is that what you end up is a ruined Jazz Bass that doesn't satisfy as a Precision either . The truth is that the best solution is to have two basses , a Precision and a Jazz . Whether the Precision should be a PJ is a moot point , for the much-discussed reasons to do with balancing the output of the pickups and the problems caused by phase cancellation , but then again , a Fender-style PJ can still be a satisfying and very useful bass , so I'm not neccesarilly dismissing them .

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1381313079' post='2237273'] You could always try a Blacktop Jazz... and I quite like the idea of a J with a P pickup. Neck still too narrow, though! Has anyone got a J body with a P neck..? I could go with that. [/quote] But why put Precision pickups on a Jazz body? Put the on a Precision body and it would look great . Also , without wishing to sound uneccesarilly elitist , what I want ( and would buy) from Fender is quality ( well , quality by Fender standards , if you know what I mean) American-made basses . They seem to make so many basses nowadays that look like , and indeed essentially are, bodged together configurations and designs made of available parts from existing Mexican-made basses. Some of the more original designs , like the Carbonita Precision and the new Starcaster Bass , look like they could be a lot of fun , but most of them look extremely unappealing to me , to be honest.