risingson

Chicago, Fleetwood Mac, Radiohead, to name a few.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381515405' post='2240247'] How? If I was distributing a free download to loads of people then, yes, I'd be depriving them of money. But if I download a file for which I would not otherwise pay for myself then how does that affect the artist? Perhaps I'm abnormal but I've not stopped buying music since the internet arrived. What I have done is listened to a much wider range of music than I used to. The stuff I don't like I don't buy but the likelihood is that I've bought stuff [u]because [/u]I've discovered it while listening to free copies. If it wasn't for terabyte hard drives I'd probably delete all the stuff I've only listened to once and never will again - would that make things any better? [/quote] Because a product you would otherwise pay for in a shop or online you are no longer paying for, very simple consumerism. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're arguing that because yours would be an isolated case of illegal download that the benefits of a band reaching an otherwise untapped market audience is beneficial. I don't disagree, but black and white facts are that if you're not paying for a product that relies on a transaction of money for the artist to profit then the artist is losing out. A relatively small cost if it was an isolated occurrence, a bigger issue when the incidence is multiplied, at which stage your argument provides a blueprint for proponents of illegal downloads.

David Byrne makes some interesting points here. He goes further than Thom Yorke in being honest about how much he owes to labels who have been willing to take a punt on his own music, a time which I now think for the majors has passed. http://m.pitchfork.com/news/52617-david-byrne-slams-streaming-services-in-new-op-ed/

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1381527263' post='2240480'] How about this guy then? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyUZh_Cbw6Q[/media] [/quote] Great, massively entertaining! Although as a wise man once said, music isn't entertainment, it's art...

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381431553' post='2239102'] There is loads of music out there that I would never ever buy but I might download a copy for free, listen to it once and then never again - 'take it or leave it' music. How is that depriving an artist of any money? [/quote] Because you're depriving them of their ability to get paid?

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1381428531' post='2239061'] I've been asking someone, anyone, to explain how an artist loses out if someone who wouldn't normally buy their music makes a copy of it instead? I'm genuinely open to an explanation. [/quote] They lose out on money obviously, providing the band have made their music in part to generate some money.

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!

Not my thing at all, I got about 30 seconds through and then enough was enough. I have no problem with people experimenting like that but I'll always think that the electric bass is voiced so badly for this kind of stuff. Why do something on a 7 string bass that can be enjoyed and performed infinitely better on a guitar or piano, something with a stronger melodic voice? The comparison with Wooten is daft as well.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381416936' post='2238799'] 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 . [/quote] '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: [quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381318770' post='2237428'] The truth is that no one has actually listened to any of his records since O.K Computer [/quote] 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 name='Dingus' timestamp='1381408397' post='2238608'] "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] 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 name='Dingus' timestamp='1381382418' post='2238228'] 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 . [/quote] 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 name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1381342764' post='2237937'] yep, so bad that it got almost universally good reviews and sold 1.75m cd copies despite being available for free on the Internet. If people want to slag off radiohead then fair enough, but you could at least come up with something that is actually true... [/quote] Exactly what I was thinking. In Rainbows was completely accessible as a record and would have made a killing had it been purchase only.

Completely solid, great rock bass playing and hugely melodic. I play this one out live a lot with my covers band and I always love playing the bass part on this, or at least approximating it!

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1381318770' post='2237428'] The truth is that no one has actually listened to any of his records since O.K Computer [/quote] 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. Radiohead are up there with my favourite recording artists of all time, I consider them to be on a par in some ways to The Beatles in their approach to music a lot is owed to them. But Thom Yorke owes the fact that he was able to choose to distribute In Rainbows for free due to his prior success, a success in part engineered by major labels who helped market and sell his music. The middleman in music trying to profiteer from the success of others will continue to exist, just like the way we consume music will continue to evolve. I do think Spotify can also be blamed for treating artists unethically and not giving them the right cut of royalties though. It's a business at the end of the day but we as musicians are always conscientious of the fact that without people like us, companies like Spotify and major record labels simply wouldn't exist. But conversely, Thom Yorke would have no career without the backing of major labels, so it's a catch 22.

[quote name='Chiliwailer' timestamp='1380466864' post='2225682'] But having a hate rant about them, especially when so many people and pro's appreciate them, I feel is a little unfair on a high quality product. [/quote] Rant? Oh dear, try not to take me too seriously, it's my own opinion, nothing more! My favourite bassist Dr. Pino P uses them.

[quote name='Lozz196' timestamp='1381163505' post='2235212'] I really like the look of these. [/quote] Me too!

I'm fairly convinced I can hear a difference in fretboard wood but I'm probably wrong. I'm also a proponent of thinking that if a bass sounds, plays and looks good then it doesn't make a huge amount of difference what an instrument is made from. Luthiers and companies have to justify to an extent the prices for their instruments if they're custom order and it's possible that they might overstate the importance of tonewoods IMO. I used to have a preference towards maple aesthetically but nowadays I like rosewood as much on certain things.

Another for Status Hotwires. Actually some of my favourite flats I've tried out too.

[quote name='Fionn' timestamp='1380403875' post='2224960'] Stuart Zender, mostly. When I first heard Jamiroquai, way back in 1993, I couldn't believe my ears. It was the music that I'd waited my entire young (at the time) life for. I was really captivated by the bass particularly. There was/ is something about early jamiroquai and Zenders playing which simply locks into my soul. I wanted to express some of that groove that I was feeling ... So, I went out and bought a bass. More than any other player that I can think of, Zender has left the strongest stylistic influence on my playing. [/quote] Zender I definitely credit for keeping me playing as a young lad. I learnt those first three Jamiroquai albums back to back, note for note!

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1380455036' post='2225424'] [url="http://www.vintagehofner.co.uk/hofner/basses/bas12.html"]And here's an even older single cut bass from 1957[/url] [/quote] But that's just an adaptation of an existing guitar design adopted as a bass design, without wishing to put words in the OP's mouth I think he's referring to more modern designs by Fodera, Sei, Nordstrand and many other brands that use singlecut designs more like this one? [url="http://www.nordstrandguitars.com/assets/images/gallery/JayLewis/amboyna2.jpg"]amboyna2.jpg[/url] I'm not a fan of the looks personally and am fairly ignorant to the reasons why a bass might be designed like this but I don't see a problem with diversity in bass design, everyone likes different things in my experience. [quote name='Lowender' timestamp='1380389918' post='2224693'] It's just seems dumb and dumb ideas tend not to last. I guess if you're obsessed with balance and structure and never play beyond the 12th fret it may have appeal, but there's also the dorkiness factor to consider. [/quote] The only reason I can see a singlecut limiting playing above the 12th fret is if you have some interesting and naff left hand technique going on. Realistically it shouldn't be a problem!

[quote name='Coilte' timestamp='1380186419' post='2221905'] if you had done some research [/quote] I'd played TI's before and remember enjoying them more than I did (mentioned this in the OP, basically the second sentence). Research not required. It's fine, I amended the situation by stringing my P up with La Bella 760FL's which sound a thousand times better.

James Jamerson, Pino Palladino (fretted) and Anthony Jackson are top. Carol Kaye, Joe Osborn, Paul McCartney, Willie Weeks, John Paul Jones I kind of group together as massive influences too. More modern guys I like are Adam Blackstone, Sharay Reed and Tim Lefebvre.

I wouldn't actively relic an instrument unless it actively relic'ed itself by me dropping it down a flight of concrete steps accidentally. But I love wear and tear on old basses, instruments with history are far cooler than stuff rolling off the production line looking brand spanking new, probably only really relevant to Fender, Gibson, Musicman etc.