4000

[quote name='alloy70' timestamp='1340456308' post='1704673'] Ok the plot thickens,ive finally seen the bass in the flesh,the story is the gentleman who owns the bass since 2006 is now 65years old,as he has back problems he cant play this bass and he only uses the alembic on rare recordings,He has given me the alembic for a lend for a couple of days to try out,in exchange ive given him a 5string musicman to try out which he has fallen in love with,He maintains the stingray is much lighter,personly i cant feel any difference.but im a happy bunny at the moment here goes the bass has all solid brass fittings,bridge,tailpeice nut,same on back of bass all solid brass,looks like two purpleheart stripes down back of maple neck ,same on front,chrome schaller tuners?anyone know are they normally fitted on an alembic,should they not be alembic tuners?finish on top and back looks like either indian rosewood or mahogany,and finally the big suprise is it is fitted with red side leds very unusual me thinks for a 1981 bass no?i shall put photos up shortly,which shall greatly help in identifing the bass,serial number 81 1860 USA,Ive loked on the alembic site,and i nearly passed out at first i thought the bass was stolen,but mine is 1860,the the one on the stolen list is 1810.thank god for that it looks like i will be swapping my stingray with small amount of cash my way,sounds like a no brainer to me if you check out the old level 42 video,man it looks very similar to marks first alembic before the got his specifications right.the back pick up screw housing is broken but the pickup is still held in place.any help in how to mend that problem would be appreciated.will keep you guys posted,any help or advice greatly appreciated... [/quote] Go on the Alembic site and go to the Alembic Club. You'll get far more information on there than you're likely to get on here because (obviously) it's far more specialist, although obviously some here (like me) are members of both forums. If you post the serial number on there (or email it to Alembic) asking for details Alembic should have records for the actual bass and Mica Wickersham is quite active on the Club. When it comes to buying it the only factors for me are do you like it and / or is it a good deal financially?

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1340219542' post='1701367'] Actually I can't. I find music far too distracting and I can't concentrate on anything else. I find it very difficult to work in a music filled environment. Music demands that I give it all my attention. [/quote] I'm the same with music and sex. Thankfully I don't have to worry about that much anymore.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340215879' post='1701276'] How would income from recordings be denied to you? If someone distributes files for free they expose your work to far more potential customers than you might otherwise have had. If only 10% of them go on to buy a recording from you then that's income you would never have had in the first place. It's is free marketing. There would come a point at which this kind of exposure ceases to be beneficial - when one becomes a household name. Chances are at that point there would be more than enough legitimate income anyway. Those that then get your stuff for free probably wouldn't have paid for it if the free stuff wasn't available anyway. So who loses? [/quote] Oh God. I'm getting the impression you're quite literal-minded. Which if so is fine, but it's something I often have difficulty communicating with. Ok, once again, I was responding to an earlier implication that musicians should give away their music for free. Obviously I don't think that no-one will ever earn music from recordings again. Or will they? Right, I'm off back to the Maldives. (Ok, porn ).

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340215169' post='1701259'] Yep. Makes me think I should be spending more time diving in the Maldives than arguing the toss about downloading music. [/quote] Actually I think this is a much better idea than that interweb thingy. Which of course is only good for porn.

[quote name='Johnston' timestamp='1340212479' post='1701206'] How many Originals bands not making money through recordings are available to be freely downloaded through the normal file sharing channels? There seems to be a line of thought no money from recordings = some file sharing dickwad is costing me money. But if they aren't available to be downloaded then well file sharing isn't hurting them. It could be said that if no one has bothered to put them on some of the file sharing sites then no one is really interested in downloading them. If no one is interested in downloading them for free then surely the amount of people willing to pay is going to be a smaller pool. Therefore they maybe aren't as popular as they think they are and are just looking a scapegoat over why their record isn't making them money. [/quote] Are my posts being translated into Spanish or something? I'm not saying anything about "some file-sharing dickward is costing me money". I'm simply pointing out the simple GENERAL fact that if you wish to attempt to make a living as a musician and the possibility of income from recordings is (hypothetically) denied to you then, if as others have implied / suggested, you have to make a living from live gigs alone, things may become rather more difficult for you. It may be that you would never have made any money from recordings at all, but if you don't have the option of making money from recordings then an avenue of potential income is lost. I'm now going to go away and find out what Soundcloud and Spotify are.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340209240' post='1701125'] oh I'm sorry I thought that was the topic being debated here. My bad. [/quote] Indeed it is. But I was responding to a subplot, which I thought was fairly obvious from my posts. Sorry I upset you by not sticking to the agenda.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340207850' post='1701090'] How have I missed the point? The point is one is no more likely to make a living now as one ever was.....illegal downloading just is not a factor in this. [/quote] Did I say anything about illegal downloading? To reiterate, read my second sentence again. If it wasn't clear, my point was that making a living simply from playing live as an originals band, without the backup of income from recordings (as it appears to have been implied by some that it's not important to earn from your recordings and that your income comes from playing live), is extremely difficult. If you don't generate income from recordings and you can't generate sufficient income from playing live (as is probably the case for most of us) then where does that leave you? I realise the chances of making money from recordings is completely arbitrary but that's not the issue.

[quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1340205386' post='1701024'] Another thought on this: if you rely on your music to pay the bills, you are going to have to devote your time and energy to the projects that bring in the cash. Unless you are very talented or very lucky these won't always be the projects that you believe in, or which will allow you to develop your art and craft. You may find that you have less time and energy to devote to those than if you had an income from a less demanding day-job. Being a pro can be something of a double-edged sword. [/quote] Potentially, yes, but not necessarily in the scenario I was envisioning, where you are the creator of the music (as I tend to be). The thing is, I'm talking about aspiration and a perfect world. Obviously the facts don't necessarily correlate or I wouldn't be in a sh*tty dead-end job. I guess my point is, if you lose the potential to make a living from something you create (and lose the potential ability to develop yourself along the way) aren't you really shooting yourself in the foot? And wouldn't you rather have the chance to find out which side of the sword you sit on (if you'll excuse the expression)?

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1340196719' post='1700794'] Yes, more pills Nursie, AND QUICK! Weeble weeble, cupcake, otter-wax, simian thorpe-thing dunderhead spatula snot, snot, snot! EEEEP! EEEPPP!! EEUUURGHHHHHH!!! * climbs up curtain and crouches on top of wardrobe. Flings dung at assailants * EEUURRGHH!! [/quote] Ah, I see you've met me.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340197122' post='1700805'] All this talk of making a living from being in an originals band makes me laugh. It is and always has been extremely difficult to make a living from writing, recording and performing music. A very small percentage of those who embark down that road succeed. This is no different today than it has always been. Many artists back in the day maintained other full time employment after signing possibly lucrative recording contracts. Things are little different today. It's not the illegal distribution that is preventing artists from making a living from music. It's probably more to do with the poor marketing behind the music. To get a hit takes pots of cash in marketing. Many artists don't have that support. This is no different now than it was back in the day. Our record company spent next to nothing on promotion. We were lucky: John Peel liked us. Some radiojocks in Spain,Italy and Greece liked us. We have never been in a position to give up our day jobs. We're recording our 7th studio album at the moment. Even if this was to 'do an Elbow' and go platinum, I think only one or two of us would give up our day jobs - I don't think I would. To earn a living from original material is an unrealistic expectation. [/quote] Oops! Missed the point entirely! It had been suggested that with sales of your product (i.e. recordings) no longer being your bread and butter, bands would make a living from playing live. I was pointing out the flaw in the argument, which you've just reinforced. Thanks!

[quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1340194046' post='1700727'] It's here: Some people will "develop as an artist" despite having many claims on their time, others will never develop even when they have all the time and money in the world. There is no simple correlation between the quality of music produced and whether the artist is getting paid or not. There are plenty of stunning amateur musicians out there making great music, and plenty of highly-paid professionals churning out dross. [/quote] This is true. However it's a bit of a red herring. For one thing, one man's dross is another man's genius. But I digress. Most people, given time and the correct environment, will improve on what they were initially. If they were totally crap, they may now simply be pretty crap. If they were pretty good, they may be great. But they will, or certainly should, improve. My point is, how much better would all those people potentially be if they were able to devote their entire lives to writing, playing and recording? I seem to be getting the impression, although I could be wrong, that some people feel that making a living as a musician, or more specifically as an artist, that the possibility of developing your art or craft without the distractions of a full-time job, is no longer something to aspire to. If that's really the case I need Nursie to get my pills...

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340192607' post='1700670'] That may just be you....we're a 5 piece. three of us have home studios. One of us works full time in the music industry and owns his own record label. We all have quite senior roles for the companies that we work for. We still find time to write, rehearse and record our songs - yes it takes longer than it did in the 80s when we had fewer other commitments but we believe the quality is better now than it was. Every gig we play (albeit that's not many) we make a reasonable profit. We never play cover versions. Make of that what you will. [/quote] We're a 4 piece. Two of us have home studios but none of us is particulalry skilled at using them. Whay? We simply haven't got the time to develop these skills, write the material, reherase, gig and have something like a life as well. However maybe the difference is that we all have anything but senior roles in our organisations and therefore spend our days being sh*t upon from a great height, generally coming home exhausted and demoralised. Whereas strangely most of our managers seem fairly relaxed and upbeat. We can make a profit, enough to cover expenses. Not enough to live on without having a full-time job to pay the bills, which was my point.

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1340192154' post='1700651'] Why? Most of us are hobbyists here, most of us are underdeveloped as musicians due to the pressures of working for a living and all the other sh*t we have to deal with. I suppose if one is on the old king cole the we get more time to practice and write. [/quote] Ah, the dole. Happy days, long ago. As for the rest, yep, I certainly qualify.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340189593' post='1700583'] We all have day jobs. We probably break even these days. Recording is far far far cheaper now than it was. Back in the 80s you'd be lucky to get change from £20k when recording an album. These days you can record an album for a fraction of that cost. [/quote] All absolutely true, but not necessarily helpful to the growth of an artist or the development of talent. How many classic albums would not have been made had the artist in question been working 10 hours a day at Tescos? Or if they had been made, how long would they have taken and what would the quality of the results been like? How many people who do a full-time job can either employ skilled sound engineers or afford to spend the time to learn Protools etc back to front, even assuming their ears are up to it? These days once I get home from work I hardly have the energy to pick my bass up, let alone come up with the next Dark Side of the Moon. Maybe that's just me. On the subject of making your money from gigs, has anybody playing originals tried this recently? Lets just say I'd be on bread & water for the forseeable future...if that.

In terms of aesthetics, many Fender or Fender type instruments, although I don't mind Ps so much. I'm particularly not interested in things with pale, insipid maple necks (I like old and tinted) or maple with black blocks and binding. I'm also not keen on too-new looking Fender instruments; if anything should look knackered it's a Fender. Show me a brand new bright red Jazz with a bright white scratchplate and a pale maple neck and it won't even register except as firewood. I'm not interested in Sadowskys etc (borne out by the ones I've played). Strangely I can't stand fancy wood Fender types either, although I like many fancy wood basses. It's just a clash of styles IMO. Not a fan of Burns basses or the Peavey T40. There are lots of things like Deans and ESPs and most Yams etc that don't even register with me (in fact the majority of things don't anymore), although I really like Ibanez SRs. Not a fan of the more extreme BC Riches (although I like the Mockingbird, Bich and Eagle). Wishbass? Sh**bass more like. Unlike many on this thread, aesthetically I love Ricks and Alembics and headless basses. I like singlecuts too & I love things with long top horns. I do wonder how much this is all influenced by the musical landscape you grew up in.....

Didn't Entwistle use Fanes?

Was Raquel Welch in that?

[quote name='gjones' timestamp='1339756093' post='1693747'] You'd better be prepared to go plonk, plonk, plonk all night because somebody would have to keep the beat and it would't be him. [/quote] Not necessarily. Depends what you're playing. Arguably my favourite band is early Yes, plenty of all-over-the-placeness going on there! I grew up listening to jazz and generally much prefer jazzier drummers (although once again it's about context).

Personally I like to find out about bassists (or anything else for that matter) I'm unaware of. Always happy to try and broaden my horizons.