Monkey Steve

Can you clarify, because that's how I read your post (not a criticism and I'm not looking for an argument, just how I saw it). My reading was that you were saying that while there isn't a legal requirement, there can be a contractual agreement with an employment agency to advertise all vacancies externally,

I tend not to take any chances for gigs - batteries are pretty cheap so it's not a massive extra cost to replace them so I'll usually replace them before a show, or after a week or two if there are a run of gigs. I'll also usually replace the strings if they're more than a couple of shows old, so batteries are a minor cost. They then get relegated to my gig bag as replacements for emergencies or pedals On reflection, I'd probably be much better off with a couple of rechargeable batteries that I re-charge and swap between gigs...

I think we should allow some special pleading here, in that lyrics are not intended to be read. They aren't poetry, they're words to accompany a tune Exactly. There's a fairly strong opinion about the death of heavy metal that since it went all PC and largely stopped singing about abusing women and killing people, RnB and rap have massively increased in popularity amongst teenage boys because it hasn't had the same pressure to grow up

One other thing to highlight in rejecting CVs out of hand, again from the perspective of whittling down a large number of applicants for a small number of vacancies, they might simply be applying some very broad requirements - in this case, perhaps experience of working in a music shop, or sales environment. They may well not be looking beyond "have they done something similar in the past?" It's always a more difficult sell to convince an employer that you can do the job when you have no directly relevant experience and other candidates might look more likely to be able to hit the ground running

OK, I'll put my hand up as a sort of HR bod - not exactly, but the work I do has brought me into pretty close contact and I know far more than I really want to about HR procedures and legislation. I can also give the point of view from somebody who has to select people to interview, and choose who gets the job First, there is no law about having to externally advertise jobs. The law has very little to say on these matters outside of discrimination issues, and thinks that it should be up to the employing company to decide who to give jobs to. However, it may be company policy to advertise externally. And generally it's considered good practice to do so, if for no other reason to make sure that the company is seeing a much wider pool of candidates, is bringing in fresh people and new ideas, and at least making sure that their internal people are as good as what they can find elsewhere. My own company has a slightly weird variation on this, which is that all vacancies must be advertised internally - we employ close to 15,000 people in the UK, right across the country, and want to promote mobility and career progression. We then only have to advertise externally if we cannot find a suitable internal applicant. As regards employment agencies, without wanting to doubt @SpondonBassed I doubt very much that any company would sign a contract with an agency that required all vacancies to be advertised externally. They may, however, have agreed a commission rate so that all external vacancies have to go through that specific agency - this isn't uncommon. In the situation described, with the people who got the jobs already being provided by the agency - you were not being employed by the company directly, and were in fact all external candidates. The company would have had to pay the agency a fee for converting your temporary/contract employment to be permanent, so the agency has won regardless. The company may have wanted to look at a wider pool of applicants, and the agency may have suggested that they do this, but there was no incentive for the agency to do this rather than simply turning all of the agency workers into permanent employees From the perspective of someone recruiting for a job, yes, you might well advertise when you have an internal candidate. I can only speak for myself, and I've always done this with a straight bat - to satisfy ourselves that there isn't a better external candidate rather than just giving it to an internal candidate because they have applied - you want to get the best person for the job. And when I've done it, in one case the external candidates were so much better than the internal one that the internal one was rejected at an early stage. But in another, it was very close, and the internal candidate got the job because they could demonstrate that they would be a good choice for the job, even though the external candidate was, if anything, slightly better at the interview and would have got the job if the other applicant wasn't internal. It's definitely a consideration, because you still have to manage the internal applicants after you turn them down, and sometimes you risk losing a good employee because they are ready for career progression and if they don't get this vacancy then they will leave. Of course, sometimes, it's a good way to get them to leave... Can't say for certain that other companies don't just invite people in to satisfy their company requirements that they have seen external applicants before awarding the job to an internal applicant. But, again, it is in the employer's interests to select the best person for the job, so if they're not doing so then they are the ones who will ultimately suffer. As for picking who to interview, I'm sure that I have rejected people who would have been perfectly good at doing the job. There's a lot of second guessing that goes on - what are these gaps in their employment history, ooh, they've been travelling and never stay for very long in any of their previous jobs so why would we trust them to stay put with us, that sort of thing. It may be simply that you read something that isn't true into how the CV presents their experience, or they don't present their experience as well as somebody else does. Rule of thumb, you probably want to see three, maybe four people to interview for most jobs, so you have to pick which three or four CVs best suit the vacancy. And I've been on the other end - applying for jobs that seem made for my experience, and not getting asked to an interview. And despite discrimination on the grounds of age being illegal, there are some jobs that you know would be best suited to youngsters in their first or second job than they would be for someone with more experience. My guess is that this is what @ped suffered from - they are looking for a school leaver who is happy doing grunt work, and that's not how you appear in your CV. While it hasn't helped, at least you got a reply - I'm hearing about a lot of jobs that have to be applied for through a portal which says "thanks, we're expecting a lot of applications, so if you don't hear back from us within a couple of weeks assume that we're not going to ask you in for an interview this time". I wouldn't read too much into the wording of the response.

All the Master Built and Custom Shop bases come set up for an actual battery and a rechargeable battery which you connect via a lead to a USB socket Came as a surprise when my Custom Shop bass turned up a couple of years back - I'd missed the bit on the website announcing this, and the Custom Shop itself didn't mention it when I was placing an order. Not being as environmentally friendly as some people, it took a little bit of fannying about to get the electrics connected to the right battery (it runs off one or the other and you have to wire it up to the one you want) - my main issue being that there doesn't seem to be any way to tell how charged the internal battery is, and i know it'll give out half way through a rehearsal or gig if I try to use it They also carve out an extra cavity for it, and I'd have preferred not to have that done

What nonsense

hang on, that's a stretch isn't it? Expecting them to compete with what somebody sells it for in a different country?

In some ways (not the consumer's obviously) I'm with Fender here, trying to maintain a level playing field for their bricks and mortar sellers.

off to see them in Islington tonight not helped by the fact that I have a meeting at Camden Council starting at 4.00 and have to be out of bed at 4.30 tomorrow morning to get to the midlands for a presentation Hoping to make it by the time they kick off...might not stay for the whole encore...though I've seen the set lists they've been posting and don't want to miss the songs they're saving for last what time did they start/finish?

yeah, until very recently there's been a lot of special pleading and whataboutism from the guitar manufacturers, that they only account for a tiny part of the decimation of certain species, and anyway they really, really need it because no other wood will do

Off topic slightly, but I do think that if I had a superpower I would wish for being able to realise things in advance rather than with the benefit of hindsight. I could apply this to so many aspects of my life... I got my 1975 Rickenback 4001in 1988 for, £675. I tried and turned down the chance to buy a 1960's EB2 for less than £500 (liked the bass, didn't love it) and had I wanted it there was a choice of two at the same price (in the Bass Centre in Wapping, which also had some double neck Rickys, and loads of Wals). The second hand shops in Denmark Street would ask prospective Precision buyers whether they wanted pre-CBS or not because they usually had them in stock, and you couldn't give away Fenders from the 1970's because everybody knew they were awful. But eyebrows were raised at the ridiculous prices being charged for the pre CBS ones: £200 or more on top of what you would pay for a new one! Who's got that much money to waste? Macari's sold me a 1978 Marshall Super Bass II for £200. They simply had a pile of Marshall valve heads, you went in, asked for guitar or bass and 50 or 100 watts, and took what they gave you Maybe it's because that was my teenage years so everything seems a bit golden from this distance, but it does seem to be the ideal time when second hand guitars were sold for second hand prices, and nobody seemed to be snapping them up as investments

I always understood that the process was for two reasons. first it "aged" the wood so that you could get the aged wood tone without having to wait 50 years. second it made the wood harder - I remember Gibson using baked maple as an alternative to rosewood quite some time ago, and it didn't have an accompanying bump in the price, in fact it had a lot of bumpf around why that was a good choice as an alternative to rosewood because it makes it just as hard (and just as dark) so don't worry (cue sceptical response from the guitar world who wanted rosewood on their Les Pauls)

so not the Dome at Finsbury Park then? I've seen a few gigs at the O2, and while it's not my favourite venue, I can't remember the sound being a particular issue fingers crossed for you

again, from my perspective, I don't agree. And not meant as a criticism, just that I have a different perspective I think there's a false distinction between practice and rehearsal - the words are synonyms anyway, and I certainly wouldn't see any difference between the two, and I would suggest that any inference that you've drawn about what people are referring to based on whether they have said practice or rehearsal may not be correct. They might mean different things to you, but they certainly don't to me. And Roget's is on my side 😊 Of course (and back to the point you are making) you may be practicing for a different reasons - learning the songs one week, correcting mistakes the next, improving performance after that. And often all three at the same session, depending on which sings are being played. It's the improving performance bit that justifies continuing to rehearse even when the songs are played without errors: getting tighter, and understanding everybody's parts, not just what you are playing. I've certainly played in bands where we've all agreed we're not "gig-ready" until we've got really tight playing the songs, despite nobody making any mistakes. It's more a feeling than anything that can be quantified. But, again from my perspective, it's not about everybody simply knowing their parts, and there is value in running through the songs regularly. Plus, like I've said, it's fun, even if the band is just playing songs that it already knows backwards - I'd still be up for a practice every week I'd agree that bands can certainly go out and play before they are as tight as they want to be, as long as they aren't making mistakes. And I certainly agree that changing practices without a plan to fix the actual playing issues won't help

yeah, I find it completely natural to have a social element to rehearsals. even if it's simply getting into the studio, running through the set and leaving, it's still hanging out with people for several hours every week. The best practices include an element of hanging out. It can be both - work and fun - it doesn't have to only be one or the other And I don't agree with some of the "just learn the song and only rehearse if there's a problem that needs fixing" comments. I love playing the bass, even better playing the bass in a band. I never see a rehearsal as time wasted, unless there's a specific reason for the rehearsal not being productive. And playing the songs over and over again to get them really tight, and to build up a musical relationship with the other band members, is time well spent. YMMV. I've played with a couple of guys who much prefer a looser "jazz" feel, where there's room for spontaneity and they don't want to feel like every song has been played to death. But not for me

I feel your pain - one lead guitarist in particular used to try this all the time, never managing to learn the songs that he didn't like, and instead finding ways to introduce his selections ahead of what the band had already agreed to do The only way it changed was a grand show down with me taking the "f*ck off" route - just refused to learn them until everything else we'd already agreed on was finished unbite that lip and let her know what you really think about her passive/aggressive games

My preference is for at least three hours, ideally four, once a week. Which everybody agrees to and they have to produce a note from their mum if they want to skip it. I've done other things with other bands which either work or they don't (the only thing that generally hasn't worked was trying massive six hour rehearsals - too long to stay focused) If the OP's mate is finding that the rehearsals aren't productive enough now, I'd suggest specifically sorting that out, agreeing a plan and getting everybody to stick to it, rather than assuming that moving to fortnightly practices will magically fix it. Pretty sure that'll just result in having unproductive rehearsals every other week instead of every week. In my experience rehearsals don't always need planning if the need for them is self evident - writing material/learning new songs/sharpening the playing/etc. But if that starts to drift then it doesn't hurt to agree (or possibly just tell the band) what you'll be doing this week, and making sure that you stick to it If it's more about freeing up time with a baby on the way, that's a conversation with the band to explain the circumstances. If they are half decent human beings and it doesn't affect the band then it shouldn't be an issue - I've personally always made the effort to see if practices can be changed if it becomes an issue for one particular band member...but it could become a test of how valued they are

we actually disagreed with most of the review (it was so obviously written by a friend of one of the other bands, who played to an almost empty venue because once they started all of our crowd left) but the one point that we did think they'd found with some truth was how we looked on stage. We then went for the "homogeneous style" and left the actual choice of how to apply that to each band member, certainly never a uniform, but the one guitarist decided that it was beneath him so he would make a point of doing the opposite

An old band of mine once got a bad review which specifically mentioned how we all looked like we were in different bands, so we had a discussion and agreed on how we should dress for the next gig. Except for one guitarist, who objected on principle to being told what to wear, so he refused, and then made a point of dressing completely differently to the rest of us the band fell apart for reasons not related to him, and most of us decided to start something new. Had a not especially good jam and repaired to the pub where the aforementioned guitarist lectured us for an hour about needing to work on crafting our image and harnessing social media well in advance of ever actually having any music ready and gigs booked. Half the band had serious misgivings about the quality of the music, but he wasn't concerned as the music could come later once we'd got an on line following, first thing to do was sort out what we were going to wear and organise some photos. Seems that as long as it was his idea, he was all for managing the band's image...not at all a fragile ego... that was the last time the band got together some people like the idea of being in a band much more than the business of actually playing music, and would rather go to the pub and discuss how they are going to take over the world (quite loudly, so that everybody can hear that they are in a band) than go to the studio and rehearse I know quite a few

About 20 years ago there was a shop in Denmark St with two 8-string Rickenbacker 4003's hanging up. I wasn't especially looking for one, and at the time the £1600 cost seemed like a bit of a stretch...but the part of me that said I should get one rationalised not doing so on the basis that they were both fireglo and I've never especially liked that finish Idiot

My reaction to your post is that you sound like you need a new challenge. Do you actively like the music you’re playing? Cos it sounds like you’re a bit bored of it. Time to look for something new, especially if you’re not depending on the income so it might not matter if you find a different band that is less busy or not as well paid, if you enjoy the playing more? ive just hit 50, and while I would t say my enthusiasm for playing is any less when I’m actually playing, over the last few years I’m not so bothered about periods where I’m not in bands or playing gigs. I tend to think it’ll pick up at some point and it usually does, at least enough to keep my hand in. Haven’t played a gig since Easter... just been asked to do some stuff i the New Year...brilliant a drummer mate of a similar vintage had a couple of years of not playing, for family reasons, but coming back to it now has a real passion, playing a couple of gigs most weekends in a. couple of bands. Perhaps you just need some time off so that you start missing it

I'm always the person who's most critical of my playing and tone, and often I'm the only person to spot what I've done wrong. More than once I've walked off stage shaking my head, and the rest of the band have all raised their eyebrows because none of them spotted anything wrong - once when my bass packed up completely during the last song of the set. basically nobody's listening as closely to you as you are Another trick, like others have said, is to record your playing. It's something I'll always do when auditioning other musicians, because just playing the bass means I'm not fully concentrated on what everybody else is doing, and sometimes it's surprising to listen back and hear that somebody you thought was good in fact made loads of mistakes, or vice versa. It equally applies to your own playing Recording is different, and it sounds a bit more like nerves from the OP than poor playing (though obvs I have no idea). I haven't done a lot of recording over the years, but when I have I've always tried to know my parts backwards (and in fact the last demo I recorded while having a massive diabetic hypo, and have little recollection of actually playing it, but the muscle memory kicked in and it sounds fine - I would have liked the producer to change the amp sound, but couldn't speak coherently at the time so had to live with what he'd done). And if there's anything that I'm not 100% confident in, I'll usually play a slightly dumbed down version for the tape

should maybe add to my previous post - most of the volume control when I'm playing comes from my fingers - set the bass for 100% then either hitting the strings with less force, or varying the playing technique if I want less volume or a different tone

depends on the bass, how the pickups are wired (specifically whether a two pick up bass has a master volume control or independent volume for each pickup) whether I need to drive the amp and whether I will be switching between basses. And whether it's a gig or a practice For gigs I'll set everything on 100% on the bass and get it right at the soundcheck. One variable less to worry about as it's much easier to remember that setting! Plus nothing unexpected for the soundman to have to deal with mid-gig if I want to hear myself better, and I'll need to tweak the amp (post DI) But for practices I'll often set 100%as a little too loud and roll it off slightly to maybe 90%, just so that I've got a little bit of poke left if things change as we are playing without having to muck about with the amp If there are two basses with different volumes, I'll again go for 100% on each and have a pedal that will cut or boost the volume for one of them, either an eq or something like a MXR Micro Amp with a clean boost