skankdelvar

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1340204081' post='1700988'] What "things" have you in mind and have they all got worse because of the internet? And "worse not better" is rather subjective so that's a doubly-sweeping statement which probably makes it doubly pointless. [/quote] What I originally said was: [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1340196175' post='1700773'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Is more good music being made or less? [/quote] So I'm not saying the internet has made these issues worse. But it certainly hasn't improved them. Despite what some may misguidedly aver, things are definitely more sh*t than they were. But I [i]am[/i] saying the internet has made marketing bands a far more complicated and expensive exercise. That's worse, depending on one's POV. Of course, if one is in a band with little or no appeal, the internet must seem like a marvellous thing. So, bands that broke through off the back of the internet? Arctic Monkeys? and - er ... It's all bollocks and everyone is ghastly.

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] I strongly disagree.[/quote] That's OK. [quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340200677' post='1700925'] The internet is the greatest markrting tool ever given to the artist [/quote] Lots of people say that. And they're wrong too. Inexpensive ubiquity might [i]seem[/i] like a good thing on the surface, but when a market's barriers to entry are so low and the numbers of aspirant bands are so high, it is almost impossible to achieve the kind of cut-through necessary for an artist to build awareness and move on to the next stage of their career. Fact is, it was easier to break a band when there were fewer 'channels'. Fewer numbers of deals to strike, less dicking around with amateur pundits and know-all internet reviewers. Few bob in the right DJ's pocket, beer up a couple of brown-nosing print journos and job done. All gone, now of course. It is far more expedient that power be in the hands of few. And a bit of quality control might ensure that most of the crap would never reach an audience's ears. This pious 'internet for the little people win' thing is a romantic mirage that just gets in the way of business. Fact is, there are too many bands out there and 95% of them are commercially useless - either technically, musically or just in terms of marketability. It would benefit the greater cause of 'music' - if not those crowds of hopeful hobbyists - if 95 'musicians' out of 100 gave up and sold their instruments. That way the accomplished and the marketable could garner sufficient gig and record income to support themselves. The rest of us could go watch them and say "They're great. I used to be in a band once, but we were sh*t." As it is, the talentless hordes are smothering the worthy few. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='Twigman' timestamp='1340198831' post='1700873'] Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? More Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? About the same number Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Easier Is more good music being made or less? More What's your point? [/quote] My point is that that things have got worse not better. Had the internet had any benefit we would be enjoying it. But I think the majority here would agree we are not. Your post is also quite eye-poppingly incorrect about 'good music'. Music today is mostly complete toilet-spackle. The idea that unleashing a technologically-driven tidal wave of unaccomplished, derivative drivel is good and somehow 'levels the playing field' may be a commonly-held belief but that doesn't make it correct. Try hawking the proposition 'music today is better than it was' around this forum and most would disagree. It's just an issue of perception and taste. The fact is, any dweeb with a DAW can knock out a few chords and parade the result on the web. Doesn't make it any good, whatever his mum and his mates might say. BTW, I'm genuinely pleased that your old band has enjoyed a late flowering among discerning afficionados. But I don't accept that this is proof of the promotional benefits of downloading because it's such a statistically microscopic one-off that it is irrelevant to the debate. NOI. The other thing is, don't take me too seriously on anything I say. One way or another, I couldn't give a f*** about the 'future of music'. I play Country, y'see. [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340199116' post='1700880'] Yes but I think "your day" is longer ago than you realise [/quote] Oh, my trick knees, bad back, agonising gout, bald head and white beard are a constant reminder. Fact is, quality is timeless, which is why the old is good and (most) of the new is inferior. Same goes for music, too. [color=#ffffff].[/color] .

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340197418' post='1700816'] I'd guess more, what would you guess? Anyone got any stats?[/quote] Well, obviously I'd say [i]fewer[/i] than 20-30 years ago. For one thing, all those medium sized gigs are gone. Basically, live music is either Enormodrome gigs by dreadful old dinosaurs / simpering pop kids. Or it's a bunch of no hopers down the Frog and Dog. Nothing in the middle, see. In my day you could see name bands in 1000 cap venues. Where are they now, the likes of ... (cont p.94) [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1340197418' post='1700816'] MORE deffinitely more. [/quote] Less. Definitley less. The internet has helped thousands of musos to find interesting bands both new and old. And copy them. Cookie-cutter dross, these days. Play me any new band you like and I'll find you a clear precedent inside half an hour. Everyone's ghastly and everything's bollocks.

Well, anything that involves 'morality' is never going to end well, because we've moved away from a general consensus of what's right into a pick'n'mix culture where the primacy of self enables one to take without payment yet still feel like a stand-up guy and a principled 'rebel'. How convenient. Still, that's another story. The fact is, copyright infringement, music theft - whatever you call it - [i]wouldn't[/i] be happening if it wasn't technically possible and - effectively - condoned by inaction. I'm surprised that The Biz never saw this coming and - when it arrived - sat on its arse and made feeble whining noises. So why has their response been so unutterably pathetic? It's like hundreds of TV's being walked out of your local Tesco and - rather than standing a couple of burly chaps on the door - the manager just puts up a notice saying 'Please don't steal our tellies'. The artists don't seem to get it either. It's always amazed me that the drumming dullard Lars Ulrich bitches at his diminishing number of 'fans' rather than pop round to his record company and give them a stern talking-to with the business end of fence-post. Prat. Leaving aside the 'moral' (spit, p'tchoo) issue of putting temptation in the way of the weak-willed, it seems to me that the (major) artists and their backers are a bunch of total pussies. And - by failing to mobilise their firepower - have dropped the smaller musician right in the clag. Of course, were the likes of Don Arden, Mike Jeffery and Peter Grant still around, it would have been a different story. First hint of trouble and some leery villains in flares would have been dangling whimpering downloaders out of sixth-floor windows. Not these days, with these camp little hedge-fund twits in their t-shirts and designer specs running the labels. As for some of the specious excuses here about the practise being 'good for the musician'? Well, use your eyes. Since the internet came in, are more bands touring or fewer? Are there more 'stepping-stone' mid-level venues or fewer? Is it easier to get a gig or more difficult? Is more good music being made or less? Thought so. Bad dog. Back in your box. And don't give me that great for music-lovers nonsense. The plethora of 'outlets' and the encouragement of fragmentation has made finding good music much more difficult for the average punter upon whose cash we all rely. I'm not talking about swivel-eyed, early-adopter music fans. I'm talking about normal, healthy people who don't want to waste their time twatting about 'searching out great new stuff'. What's bad for them is bad for us. The old set-up acted as a very efficient sh*t-filter. Not now. The web is like a giant-fire hose connected to the outlet of a sewage farm and every little turd has his own little website and microscopic coterie of followers that want to keep it all exclusive, the better to nurse their low self-esteem in like-minded company. So Joe Normal shrugs his shoulders and we're all up the Swannee. To put the sour cherry on the stale cake, a sizeable minority of musos are so keen to 'bring down capitalism' that they're busy sawing off their own cocks by defending copyright infringement. In other circumstances, they'd be sectioned for lacking the capacity to act in their own best interests. But this is Rock 'n' Roll and they've fallen for the old 'rebellion' fantasy so we have to indulge them or we get called 'breadheads'. O tempora, O mores. Back to mono and a flick of Richard Cole's foot. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='Telebass' timestamp='1340047444' post='1698319'] As an example of why I hate, hate, HATE the technique, I refer you to 'Let's Go to San Francisco' by The Flowerpot Men. Aaaaaaarrrrrgggghhhh! And it was played, horrifyingly, by none other that John Paul Jones![/quote] Funny old world, because I love that song to death, in part for the bass. For me, Jonesy's sound on this track is the epitome of that 60's plimpy-plump tonal cliche and it never fails to make me smile. The unaligned may judge for themselves at 1:14 - 1:38 and 2:20 - 2:40 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr5WDhPtFys[/media] [color=#ffffff].[/color]

I keep reading this thread title and thinking 'Yes, Basschat [i]is[/i] funny. It's [i]very[/i] funny'. The famous quotes thread is an absolute gold-mine of humour and almost every thread has a zinger in it somewhere along the line. That some detractors miss out on the fun is their loss. f*** 'em.

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1339872041' post='1695789'] [quote]skankdelvar, on 15 June 2012 - 07:05 PM, said: In defence of this thread, the OP was posting tongue in cheek. [/quote] How could you tell? [/quote] It was just that I read the following post by the OP and thought "Oh, it's a tongue in cheek sort of thread, then". [quote name='xgsjx' timestamp='1339593490' post='1691067'] Like I've said already, the 10 bassists I put at the start is the same 10 bassists I put in the "10 best bassists" thread. <snip>I thought some might have seen the humour in the list <snip>I can understand some folk won't get my (crap) sense of humour, unless you've read some of my other posts. [/quote]

[quote name='EdwardHimself' timestamp='1339836197' post='1695047'] I know, sorry. Just a bit angry about stupid kids posting comments on some bass facebook page last night.[/quote] No need to apologise, Ed. It's just me being old and grumpy again. Surprised you missed the smut, though. AFAIC, using a pick, fingers or slapping are just means to an end. Tools which are suitable to the task in hand, if you like. You'd use a hammer to bang in a nail and a screwdriver to - well, you get my drift. We all know this and I don't see why we so frequently get analytical or defensive about it. I just can't imagine a thread on a woodworking forum where someone would say "Hammers - they're for failed brickies" and they'd give it more than a hollow laugh. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

Aren't we a wee bit early with this year's Pick thread? I'm [i]sure[/i] someone told me it was arranged for August. Oh well "Fingers ... drone ... pick ... yadda yadda ... hybrid style ... stick it between one's teeth or a quick palming action? ... blah ... what's right for the song ... double thumbing ... double entry..." (Will this do?)

In defence of this thread, the OP was posting tongue in cheek. And if the concept of 'worst' is so damnably offensive to so many of our brethren, why did they read it rather than simply pass by on the other side? In any event, there are very few 'new' topics on this forum and 'worst / best' is always guaranteed to drive a bit of page traffic. We should consider it a way of keeping Ped in 35mm film.

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1339782524' post='1694387'] He's quite pushy in the flesh to be honest [/quote] Leave a Weight-Watchers' mag lying around the rehearsal room. He'll soon get the hint.

Funny how - in new, under-rehearsed, ungigged bands - it's always the drummer who goes "Yeah! Wow! Let's [i]dooooo itttttt[/i]!" and everyone sort of shuffles their feet a bit and coughs. I suppose it's not an unreasonable question to ask but looks dead pushy when written down. Teach him to use the telephone and to speak with his mouth. All will be lovely.

Just re-read the original post - on the night in question, the playing space was under the piano in this pic. M'mm. Three piece band [i]and[/i] a party of 16? I don't think so.

And another thing... Nothing against Americano, but - in my old Blues band - the words 'Jazz Cafe' or 'Cabaret' or 'Restaurant' always filled me with trepidation. Particularly as the guitarist's smallest amp was a Bluesbreaker re-issue. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

Seems to me we should have a look at the floorspace in question: Apart from the fact that everybody in the pix seems to be having a good time, it strikes me that this is a [i]not[/i] a big venue. Long but very shallow - maybe 15' deep from front wall to back wall. So I'd imagine that trying to fit a full band in alongside a party of 16 would be a bit of a stretch. Myself, I'd have reservations about taking a full-size, loud-ish band in there under any circs. Also, the front wall seems mostly to be glass - I'd imagine that sound levels in there could require serious compromise. Looking at the venue's gig list, it seems mostly to be singers with acoustics, so a 'leccy guitarist at full beans might be a bit scary. TBH, this sounds like one of those situations where everyone starts with the best intentions but a wheel comes off and tempers flare. Least said soonest mended, IMO. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='musophilr' timestamp='1339676465' post='1692465'] Rick Wakeman [/quote] Oh, you so beat me to it. Big up (as they say) for The Myths and Legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

Couple of thoughts: * Cost of cancelling holiday vs remuneration from gigs. Will you be quids out? * Do the trip later - the countries you propose to visit are perfectly nice in September. Fewer tourists around, too, though many hotels, etc., may be closing up at season's end.

[quote name='algmusic' timestamp='1339527194' post='1690006'] My reason for reporting it was that it was such a long time ago and also the guy still uses the site and to be teased like we're all in our pre-teens a year later is rather infantile.. and not that nice... [/quote] That's a very good point.

Welcome, Bass-Thing Nice story about Herbie Flowers - hope you enjoy the forum

* Valve pre-amp you can stick in the FX return, thus bypassing the existing pre-amp / tone stack * 3 knob tone stack * Fender / Sunn / ACC / Marshall / Ampeg / 'Modern' choices * Option to swap 12AX7, AT7, AU7 for varying OD. * Switchable onboard effects loop with clean blend and optional thumpinator-type low-end frequency cut * 1/4 inch [i]and[/i] XLR out with switchable speaker sim (punchy / deep option) * Sounds good with guitars too * Priced at £149.99, thank you very much. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='noelk27' timestamp='1339204234' post='1685426'] And, with Fenders, I'd have pinned the Mustang ahead of Precision.[/quote] Tina Weymouth. Sigh.

Thing is, Sid had a black plate white P because that's what Dee Dee played. As for Rics, well Matlock played one, so did Simmo for a while. And Hooky (faker?). And - of course - there was Foxton (faker to start with, then a real one, IIRC). Maybe there were more of them around in those days. Thing is, most of us couldn't tell the difference between one bass and another. You just took what you could [s]steal[/s] get. [color=#ffffff].[/color]

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1339019542' post='1682681'] I've posted this before on the forum but it seems a sensible place to post it again. Its a blog entry by an Edinburgh promoter/record label about "reasons promoters and bands don't get along". I think its very interesting reading---especially because it comes from someone who I would class as a "good guy" when it comes to promotion and putting on gigs. [url="http://songbytoad.com/2011/07/a-few-reasons-promoters-and-bands-dont-get-along/"]http://songbytoad.co...dont-get-along/[/url] [/quote] Bump for this post. The linked blog also contains a splendid debate from which we could all learn. Thanks for putting this up, Uncle Psychosis