SumOne

Yeah, they do say 'apart from vintage fuzz and wah' and I guess it depends on how much overdrive before it steps into that territory, and they are talking about compression as an effect. Personally, I don't use much compression at all unless I'm playing a clean sound, then it can be good subtlety, or as a noticeable squish effect. But if I use effects I'll put more like a Limiter with a high threshold at the end - just in case there's something like an overly 'peaky' envelope filter that needs taming. I think, @garry warrington, you might want a compressor with clean blend, or change the compression settings lower, or if you are using the Beta with a lot of overdrive perhaps you don't need a compressor at all (as it'll be compressing your signal anyway). The Beta does tend to be quite muddy sounding.

This from Origin Effects website: "... where do you place the compressor in your signal chain? The Official Textbook of Pedal Placement™ states that, apart from vintage fuzz and wah, compression should always be first in the chain. For typical guitar use – that is to say, using your compressor as an obvious effect – we certainly agree. Compression reduces the dynamic range of your signal, squashing the peaks and preventing any notes from jumping uncomfortably out of the mix. For clean sounds, like those used by Funk or Country players, this is just what you want – a nice, even clean tone without slicing anyone’s heads off. If this is how you like to use your compressor, it will work best first in the chain. This is partly because the next pedal is likely to be an overdrive. Overdrive will also dramatically affect the dynamics of your signal, clipping the peaks and eliminating any difference between loud and quiet notes. As such, placing a compressor after your drive would not allow you to bring out all the snappy, funky bits of your playing – your overdrive has got rid of them all already!"

I'd put the compressor before overdrive.

I think, in the example of a Dog knowing how to walk, the point is that a Dog doesn't formally study the theory of how it is creating movement and it can't explain about energy and muscle groups and the physics of gravity and movement. It has learned by doing. Sure, it is useful for some people to formally study these things in-depth and knowledge is always a good thing, but you don't usually need to study in that level of detail to achieve your objective. It's semantics whether the Dog knows the theory of walking or not, but in science a Theory is quite a specific formal thing "supported by evidence: a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data." You can apply Laws of Motion & Gravity and conservation of Energy and the Theory of General Relativity and use data and evidence to explain how the Dog walks, but generally speaking - in scientific terms, you wouldn't say the Dog understands the theory of what it's doing - it doesn't comprehend how it works, just that it works. In the same way, to play (or write) 'Creep' you don't need to know if chords are Secondary Dominant or Chromatic Mediant. In all likelihood, Radiohead didn't know in-depth theory of it, they listened to the Pixies and Bowie songs with the chord progressions and learned by doing, and they in turn had listened to the Elvis song that had used it, and that was influenced by the Ink Spots, who listened to the Shep Fields song - who probably heard it somewhere else. I wouldn't be suprised if none of them (and whoever originally did it) knew or spent time considering the theory of whether they are using a Secondary Dominant or Chromatic Mediant, they noodled about and made a chord a minor and thought it sounded good. Personally though, I'd say some formal understanding of music theory goes a long way and is pretty much essential, it makes playing a lot easier if you know something about timings, notes, chords, triads etc, you could figure it all out by listening/doing but you'd save yourself a lot of time and effort to just do a bit of formal learning. But for me, when it comes to more advanced music theory, learning about things like the difference between Secondary Dominant and Chromatic Mediant, personally, I think my time is better spent playing with bands and listeing to music to learn by doing. I don't think that's snobbery, I think most of those artists that recorded songs with that chord progression would probably say the same thing.

I know this gets into silly semantic stuff, but for sake of Internet argument: A Dog can walk, but it doesn't know what muscles, joints nerves etc are used or the physics of gravity, acceleration, momentum etc. Could we say the Dog knows the theory of walking because it knows how to do it? I can play 'Creep' and understand it sounds right, but couldn't explain the theory like the video on the first page. Can I claim to understand the music theory though?

Donstrumental "Riddim up my Reggae Bass lovers" https://www.youtube.com/@donstrumental8905

I'd say sitting is fine for music where people sit to listen to it (jazz, folk, classical, theatre work). If you are trying to get people to get up and dance though (which I guess is a big part of a pop/funk covers band) then having a band with people sitting down doesn't really help encourage people to get up, so isn't ideal - hence not seeing many funk bands with bass players sitting down. Perhaps sit (on a high stool) for the slower songs and stand up once you're trying to get the crowd to dance? I'd recommend going for something like an Ibanez EHB. The 4 string ones can be less than 3kg, and perhaps a shorter scale - or travel Bass: the Traveler ULB Ultra-Light is about 1.5kg. But as others have said, posture/position/stretching etc. are things I've found really help too, perhaps more than the weight of a Bass.

In a way, I quite like this trend for flagship shops as basically a place to visit/advertise and not to actually buy stuff (although perhaps this Gibson one is trying to sell cheaper tat too). That's the impression I get from things like the Yamaha London store - it seems it can't possibly be immediately profitiable as a shop for the location and size and selling at RRP, but the point is more about the bigger picture of advertising the brand, they aren't trying to compete with online costs - they're giving you the idea to buy their brand though. I don't know about the Gibson place, but the Yamaha shop is good to just go and try out stuff and give you GAS, but not to actually buy from there e.g. Yamaha CK 61 is £1,680 from the Yamaha shop where you can try it out in-person, £769 online from Scan - where you'll think 'that's a great deal, I've saved £900').

I think there's a lot of over-thinking going on here! People generally don't mind hearing impressive singers, or flashy guitar solos and piano parts. Some people (most people it seems) just prefer basslines that are a solid and perhaps catchy backbone to the music, the popularity of simple basslines in pop, rock, funk, reggae, country, hip hop etc. it isn't because people are idiots who don't like good musicians or clever people - it's that the majority of people just don't enjoy the sound of complex/busy basslines, they aren't good to dance to or relaxing to hear, that stuff is better suited to instruments like guitars.

Anyone new to the Core, a couple of simple (but perhaps not obvious) things: - In/out settings: Set your input level correctly. You might also want to check your 'output' and 'sub out' settings. - Tuner: when on it, click < or > to get to the screen to set it to Bass. - On effects chain 'MST' click > to select 'BS mode' to 'on'. - Make a blank template as a starting point for your presets.

I'm back in the Core club, hopefully third time lucky! I've kept selling them when I've gone into a band where I don't need fx, thinking individual pedals will be simpler and cheaper, then bought again when I'm in bands that need more fx. It's a costly business model, perhaps this time I'll learn my lesson and just keep it regardless. I played it with a band that doesn't need many fx last night (just compressor, drive, eq, hpf) and without telling people I'd changed anything the Drummer was very complimentary of the sound "what have you changed? It's the best I've heard you sound". So, an endorsement of the Core for bread and butter sounds, and in a smaller package than even having just those few individual pedals. A couple of criticisms though: I clicked the tuner off once (2x footswitch press) and must have then accidentally pressed one footswitch - changing the Preset to something I didn't want without my realising until the wrong sound was coming out. Not being able to delete fx from the chain: it's not a big deal to just put all the un-used ones at the end of the chain and turned off, but there's potential for confusion and accidentally turning the wrong thing on, if they could just be deleted it'd make things simpler and more foolproof. Boss should have copied the Helix footswitch ideas: dull/bright lights and soft-touch. ...and I don't know why no-one other than Source Audio (and perhaps FI, and to a lesser extent Zoom) can really nail digital envelope filters and synth sounds.

Did a line of ants, threw a tv out of the window then drove my roller into a swimming pool. (Actually, I just had a pint and a chat with bandmates as we packed up our stuff).

The thing that comes to mind for me

Yeah, I'd consider the GT 1000 Core. The processing seems twice as powerful as the Stomp: Core = 24x effects blocks (some are fixed though, e.g. can't have 24x space echo's all going at once). Stomp = 8 (or I think now 10 at a push) Core = 3x parallel paths. Stomp = 2x parallel paths Core = 96khz sample rate . Stomp = 48khz sample rate Core = £499 (on sale at GAK right now). Stomp = £499 And as others have said, more power means things like higher fidelity, lower latency, as well as more complex signal paths (useful for things like running your DB and Bass each in quite long parallel paths within the same preset). I thought the Core sounded better than the Stomp, it's hard to exactly say why, but it just feels a bit more analogue sounding for the things like the overdrives. The Stomp does have probably a nicer interface though (colour screen and things like the soft touch/glowing footswitches - so you know what effect it'll turn on when engaged). Perhaps it's also worth considering the Zoom B6. It has a dedicated A/B footswitch you could use to go between DB/Bass and is £389 from Thomann. I haven't used it, but people seem to say they're decent.

If you are sticking with some core sort of sounds, I'd probably stick with your setup: Tonebone OD --> C4 --> Whammy Ricochet -> EHX Freeze -> SFX Micro Thumpinator --> Keely Bassist I think most of them do their individual job as well - or better than the stomp (especially the C4 for synths and envelope filters, and things like the Tonebone & Freeze & Compressor I prefer a bit of hand on (or foot on) control. The Stomp is good if you want to more complex presets though.

Anyone here happen to know where any DJ Derek mixes are online? I can't find any, there are some tribute mixes and a Spotify playlist of music he played, I can't find any recordings of him live though.

Facebook marketplace seems to bring out the worst in people. Just this weekend, I ended up staying in for a buyer that never turned up, no response to messages even though they'd been hassling for about a week with loads of silly questions and to arrange the collection time. I'd put off other buyers and changed weekend plans. I just can't fathom what's going through their heads to be such time wasters and so inconsiderate.

I recently went back to 4 from 5 as out of three bands I play in there is probably <5% of the setlist songs that go lower than the low E, and those that do mostly are just D for a couple of notes that can be substituted. So no 'need' for a 5. Saying that though, I have been missing that 5th string, particularly for home playing as 4 feels a bit restricted. Similar to the fact I have an 88 key home piano and a 61 key stage keyboard (with octave up/down buttons). So I reckon I'll be back to a 5 soon.

After a couple of weeks I'm still impressed with the CK 61, no issues with it. I guess the Fantom 06 is fairly similar to the MPC Key 61 that I sold to get the CK 61. The MPC Key 61 is more capable than the CK 61 in most ways - but, it is double the price, bigger, heavier, less 'hands-on' for things like organ drawbars. For live use I think the more 'what you see is what you get' approach of the CK 61 with things like physical controls and very little menu diving and faster startup is better, even if it has fewer effects and the sounds are sometimes not as good. My main issue is still the fact that the key width is just slightly thinner than a standard piano, I find 5mm thinner per octave noticable, I am getting more used to it though. I have been on the fence about returning it a couple of times due to key width and the nagging feeling that I'm always going to think a Nord Electro 6 is probably the best of these sort of stage pianos with organ drawbars....but £1k extra is quite difficult to justify. And actually, the Nord is missing a couple of things I find useful like the way the CK lights up buttons to show which sound your are editing, integrated speakers, bluetooth connection, pitch and mod wheel, and the Nord it weighs twice as much, so it isn't better in every way.

Edit: Now I can see the video. It would be nice to have that level of music theory knowledge, but I'm not sure that it's really needed. My guess is that Radiohead were influenced by hearing those songs listed by artists like Elvis, Bowie, Pixies. Or they were noodling about as it's not too far off the chords that the circle of 5ths would point you to (G- C - B diminished). I mean, most people can speak/write without really being able to spell out the theory for how they do it. Sure, some theory helps (you need to have learned to speak/write!) but writing a sentence like 'It sounds great; however, did he make it himself?' Aparrently (via Chat GTP) is a compound sentence that includes Pronoun, Verb, Adjective, Conjunctive Adverb, Verb, Reflexive Pronoun, Interrogorative clause. Do people who write a sentence know all theory/terms? I kind of think, as with music theory, you could over analyse every piece of speech/writing/music in that level of technical detail, but it wouldn't necessarily make for a better speaker/writer/musician (hence why so many popular musicians can't even read music, let along go deep into technical terms and theory).