leftybassman392

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1425487796' post='2707849'] I guess it could be perceived as a degree of elitist, but I'd prefer to slant it as people just doing it better and with more idea. Of course, you can have all these ideas and directions and if you are playing to small audiences, you've still 'failed'...but cheese to me is bands shaping their set to be totally populist above all else... and you'll also probably find little imagination with the numbers they've chosen... you might also find they choose numbers that say 'wow' look at me' aren't we great.. It may be all cover bands have an element of this so it comes down to conviction and amplitude..?? Anyway, the most obvious are easy to spot... If the band don't play very well, and still pick tunes like Alabama etc etc, the choice is mostly a get out of jail choice, rather than a suitable and rousing rendition.... [/quote] Hang on a minute... this is another one of your definitions isn't it?

[quote name='cameltoe' timestamp='1425420802' post='2707265'] Agree that Summer of 69 should be everybody's red line. [/quote] At the risk of repeating myself; it's a fair point but not the question that was asked.

[quote name='Nicko' timestamp='1425401691' post='2706973'] If thats the case I'd be leaving the covers band and joining an originals band. Its one of my "red lines". Absolutely hate it. [/quote] Noted, but see above on the subject of why you're doing the gig. Plenty of songs that I've played that I loathed, but which the great unwashed seemed to like for some reason I could never fathom.

440Hz is not universally agreed on as the standard. It can vary surprisingly widely depending on where you are and what you're playing. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_%28pitch_standard%29"]http://en.wikipedia....tch_standard%29[/url]

Anybody mentioned 'Summer of '69' yet? It was one of our staples during my pub band days in the Northampton area ('Tango With Dignity', thanks for asking) - so much so that some of the locals at our regular pubs would get uppity if we didn't play it.

Anybody know where I can find a copy of the score for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qte_Ne5mpJk Always liked it but until recently had never heard it in isolation from the film. I quite fancy studying it a bit more closely. TIA

I didn't see it mentioned in the article but it's something called Equal Loudness Contour: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contour[/url] Some years ago HiFi amps often had a 'loudness' switch that progressively boosted treble and bass as you lowered the overall volume. I have a sneaky feeling that guitar amp manufacturers experimented with them as well. You can probably still find them on some kit. Hope this helps.

Historically lots of stringed instruments have had strings in pairs, so perhaps not as odd as it might look. TBH I'd be surprised if somebody hasn't already had their pickups routed to separate destinations. Expressively it opens things up enormously, and on reflection it seems such an obvious thing to do. Ten or fifteen years ago I'd have jumped at something like this, especially on my acoustic.

Ok, thanks for that. I suppose another route might be to look at who was making active basses in the '80's. I'm pretty sure it's neither a Wal nor a Jaydee... Was there a market in third-party preamps at that time? I'm good at this 'shooting in the dark' malarkey!

It may help if we had a pic of the front panel controls and a brief lowdown on what everything does.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1423067139' post='2680283'] Yes, I agree, which is why I bracketed my answer as such. I am not not acknowledging them as professionals from an ability to earn POV. [/quote] Which would mean, if I've understood you correctly, that the vast bulk of musicians playing in symphony orchestras don't count as professionals properly speaking (otherwise they'd be working as soloists in their own right because only soloists - who by definition are the ones at the top of their particular game - count as professionals). Is that correct? Or are you only joking around - bit of a larf? I ask in all seriousness, because I can't see what else would explain such an, er, unusual claim. No offence intended.

[quote name='JTUK' timestamp='1423063812' post='2680205'] To me, the only definition of a pro really worth taking note of is someone who excels to such a degree that they are pretty much top of their game. And probably the 'inspiration' of this thread is pretty much at the TOP of the game. That is not to say other efforts are worthless, of course, but we are talking about a degree of excellence here in that the top people hire the TOP people. That is a rarified field indeed. [/quote] ...which pretty much excludes around 95% of the people who consider themselves professional musicians. I suspect we're destined to disagree on this one. You see, in my book what you're talking about here is not professional musicians but elite musicians (whatever that might mean).

There are a couple of threads around the forum ATM that revolve around the status of 'pro' musicians and their relationship with ordinary mortals (for want of a better term). I was going to post in both of them but felt that in both cases, what I wanted to say would be slightly off the main thrust of the thread... and so: To me the definition of a professional musician (and, more generally, a music professional) is actually *really* simple. It is somebody who earns their living entirely or primarily by carrying out a range of activities within the music industry - as a rule of thumb, if you specify your main occupation using the word 'music' or 'musician' on official forms that require it then you are a music professional. IMHO any other definition runs the risk of confusing the issue - on reading the two threads in question it became abundantly clear that different posters were using differing benchmarks in making their point. To be fair, one or two people did raise this very point in their posts, but nobody seemed to really pick up on the idea (unless I missed something of course - always a possibility). As in all walks of life, music professionals come in all shapes and sizes. Here's my perspective. For 15 years earned my living through a range of music-related activities - I played (guitar and bass); I taught (likewise); I ran a small project studio for hire; I ran a P.A. hire business. All these things were done for money (most of the time anyway). I had no other source of income - what money I made came entirely from these activities. How did I earn my living? I was a music professional (I think my HMRC Self-Assessment form used to say 'Music Services' or some such). Was I famous? No. Did I ever share a stage with anybody famous? No, not really; although a few of them were fairly notable in their field and in demand by people who know what they want (although IME there's plenty of outstanding musicians out there that nobody's ever heard of, and plenty who are famous but have done little or nothing to deserve it and should feel both lucky and humble to be where they are). Was I good? Well I can't really answer that except to say that for every activity that I was involved in, I knew plenty of people who were better at it than I was. Having said that, I was never short of students to teach or bands to play in so I must have been quite good at some of it at least... Did I consider myself special in any way? No. Not at all. I was just somebody trying to earn some sort of a living doing something I loved and would in different circumstances have done for nowt. During this time I thought of myself as a music professional (although I seriously doubt that I'm the sort of person that some have in mind when they use the term 'pro' in this context). So to the question that lies at the heart of this post: what do you mean when you talk about 'pro' musicians? Perhaps if we know what people mean when they use the term it might help. It might not, of course; on balance though, better to have asked the question I think.