flyfisher

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1392129145' post='2365073'] I don't see how the question of guest lists/complimentary tickets (call it what you will) impacts on a venues ability to survive. [/quote] The programme suggested that it was a space thing. Many of the venues they were discussing are very small so the guestlist ends up restricting the paying punters = less revenue. So it was claimed.

Nice reply . . . . but are they heavier or not?

Yeah, s'pose so. If I had remembered that topic I would have posted the programme link there. Just thought someone might be interested in another take on it, that's all.

Quite right. All that matters is if someone likes the result of whatever you happen to be doing with your instrument.

[quote name='davehux' timestamp='1392123607' post='2364944'] Video yourselves at a gig. Play it back in the cold, hard, sober, light of day and see how it came across. When I did it, the gaps between songs where the guitard was in 'now which pedal do I need for Mustang Sally, and I better have a retune for the 40th time tonight' mode, made a standard tumbleweed moment look like the eruption of Krakatoa [/quote] When I first joined one of the bands I play with, there was one guy who was always in a asking before each song about his capo position or which harp to use or what key. Ridiculous and would spoil any flow we had managed to got together. But it was easily solved with a set list with specific notes on his copy. Sorted. You don't have to be the best band in the world but there's really no excuse for bumbling around on stage wondering what to do next! Tuners are also a mixed blessing I feel, especially those ones clipped to the headstock - too tempting to keep using them, getting distracted and ruining any flow to the proceedings.

[quote name='chris_b' timestamp='1392123067' post='2364930'] Joe Walsh used a great intro at one of Clapton's Crossroads festivals: "If I knew I'd still be playing this song I'd have written something different". [/quote] Reminds me of something JJ Cale said on one of those Crossroads Concert DVDs [i]"We used to say when we were 20 years old that when you reach 30 you've got to hang up your guitar and get a real job and y'know do day stuff, and here I am at 65 and I'm still doing it - I can't believe that, it's hard to comprehend"[/i]

Interesting programme on Radio 4 this morning discussing small music venues and their struggle to survive. Some interesting comments about how audiences increasingly expect not to pay for live music in such venues and how even fairly established bands expect to have a large guest list, which means there is hardly any room in these small venues for paying punters anyway. Programme page is here and it looks like it will be on iPlayer soon. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03trs7b

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1392118744' post='2364808'] That's the way to do it. What was everyone there for? Not to hear Robert Palmer talking, that's for sure. [/quote] Agreed. Clapton is pretty much the same. He'll introduce his guests (though only a simple 'please welcome . . . . ') and offer the occasional 'thank you' but he's never been talkative whenever I've seen him. As you say - what do people go to a music gig for? It's not stand-up is it?

[quote name='Roland Rock' timestamp='1392114695' post='2364740'] So in conclusion, if a front person finds they are saying the same thing at each gig, then that's a sign that they need to keep the banter to a minimum and pretend to be cool instead :-D [/quote] I've seen Ray Davies play a few times in recent years and he has used the same same joke every time. I'm pretty sure I also heard him use it at Glastonbury last year (or was it the year before - I only saw it online). I guess it's all part of a fully rehearsed show, jokes and all. After all, most of the people in the audience won't go to every gig on a tour so it's only the band that will get bored with the same jokes.

Yep, nothing wrong with the design, it's just that the bass in question has developed a fault. No need for a redesign, just fix the fault. Last time I had a puncture, I didn't modify my car to be a three-wheeler.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1392061565' post='2364278'] If these OBMM's are so good then how come no one famous uses them and where are their adverts? What use is a cable without propaganda? I can get something for under a tenner that will make sound come out my bass, but I want some bullshit to believe in to go along with that sound, preferably involving words like "coaxial" , " symmetrical" and "hyper-litz". That, my friends , is worth paying extra for. [/quote] I'm sure there are plenty of companies that will exchange your hard-earned for propaganda. Here's one take on it all: http://www.aqdi.com/hype.htm

Yeah - to steal from another topic, that's a real life/music balance!

Yes, it's making a connection but the point is it shouldn't be unless the lead is plugged in. That's a fault and it should be fixed. It's unlikely to be a design fault because my Fender active J doesn't behave that way (nor does my active acoustic guitar) and we've not been inundated with other active jazz owners complaining about the same problem, which also suggests it's a one-off fault. Plus the bass is under warranty, so the supplier should fix the fault anyway. Also, modifying the pickup switch to be centre-off would only disconnect the pickups from the preamp, it wouldn't remove the battery power to the pickup, so wouldn't solve the problem. Even if the bass had a pickup switch, which is doesn't.

[quote name='Dingus' timestamp='1392046571' post='2363980'] Just get your salary paid directly to The Gallery and have them give you an allowance out of it to live on . [/quote] Brilliant!

Getting boring now, I know, but all I can say is that my OBBM instrument and speaker leads are all spot-on. Not sure how he got those railway lines inside my speaker cables though - can't imagine losing many watts on the way to the cab!

Absolutely. I often thought it was such a waste that when digital/CD technology finally arrived and allowed higher dynamic range and quiet passages without background hiss and scratches, that producers cranked up the compression and destroyed all that dynamic range! Not always of course, but certainly a prevalent trend. Fashions change I guess.

I doubt that any mods are needed. Given that the bass shouldn't be chewing through batteries so fast in the first place, it's more likely to be an actual fault, so best to get that fixed, not mod around it. That's my take on it anyway.

Isn't it inevitable? The loudness war was a means to differentiate recordings. When everyone is doing the same thing and compression has been cranked right up to the max, its value as a differentiator wanes, so producers have to look for something else.

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] But of course in your points quoted - by then the Beatles had stopped being a live act. Which led them to being a studio bound experimental combo. I don't know of any of, what this forum construes as, rivals who did the same. [/quote] Another example of their innovation? Quite brave to turn their backs on touring I'd have thought. [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] As a rock band they couldn't hack what the main purpose of most rock bands is. [/quote] Interesting suggestion that the main purpose of a rock band is to play live. It's certainly a great thing, but it could be argued that recordings reach more people. As for 'couldn't hack' live performances, I suspect the state PA technology was against them. We've all seen those ludicrous stadium gigs where they are resolutely out-screamed by their fans. I'm sure that would soon take the shine of gigging for any of us. Unfortunately, by the time PA technology caught up with their needs they were already well on the way to breaking up. [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] Chuck Berry is who he is, without him the Beatles progress would have started and ended with Lonnie Donnegan. He's the one who created the "genre", NOT the Beatles! Surely knowing what Berry's contribution to music history shouldn't need any explanation. [/quote] Why would it have ended with Donegan? Why wouldn't Lennon and McCartney still have developed their song writing without Berry? It's possible I suppose, but just as much a guess as the alternative. Of course Berry made a big contribution to modern music, but I don't think he could fairly be cited for a wide range of different styles. [quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391989070' post='2363420'] Then of course, there's all of the Beatles admissions that without George Martin there would have been far less progress. [/quote] Absolutely! Martin is certainly worthy of the epithet '5th Beatle' if anyone is!

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391970135' post='2363138'] Personally I prefer to see them as one of the biggest stepping stones to what we have now, rather than a shift changer. As I said, they did what Holly & others before him had done but on a bigger scale. [/quote] I see your point about 'stepping stones' but surely the unique thing about The Beatles is that THEY were the ones who defined the stepping stones to a very large extent. Yes, they did some Buddy Holly type stuff in their early days, and Elvis type stuff and Chuck Berry and others but the Fabs were different because of the way they developed. Holly disn't really have much time to develop different stuff so remains frozen in time. Presley did the same sort of stuff throughout his career and Berry - well Berry today is pretty much identical to Berry of the 50s. They don't represent stepping stones, they are just standing on a single stone. By contrast, compare Love Me Do era Beatles with Sgt Pepper a mere 4 years later. FOUR YEARS! Or the huge variation of styles on the 'white album' a year later, or Abbey Road. The Stones, in comparison, are more like Chuck Berry in that they haven't really developed the genre over 50 years. That may be a good thing, but it's not influential. They are just another 'white boys playing the blues' band, very successfully of course, but innovative and influential? Oh dear, have I jumped the gun by 4 pages?

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1391964319' post='2363056'] Thank you! Five pages into the bi-monthly Beatles debate before someone mentions a young guy who had a guitar, bass, drums band that wrote and recorded their own hits while The Quarrymen were still playing skiffle & was dead before the Beatlezzzz had their first hit. Then some BCer says they don't rate them which some bell-ender translates and twists into a denial of some kind and so the rage starts. Remember Kiwi might be away but has his spies out & they're taking notes. ........................... ........................... & indeed [/quote] I think it's safe to predict many more Beatles-related [s]rants[/s] [s]arguments[/s] discussions this year, and the next, and the next, ad infinitum. But Buddy Holly? Fact is, he [u]didn't[/u] change the world of music forever, but The Beatles did. Maybe he could have done, or maybe he would have still disappeared without trace when the Fabs burst on the scene. Like a million others. But we'll never know. What we do know is that The Beatles did it. For better or worse, but they still did it.

Actually, you raise an interesting point. If gas encourages people to play more, perhaps because of the novelty of a new instrument, then it probably would help people improve. Oh dear. I wish you hadn't made me think of that.

That's the thing I think. They can't be repeated because they were the first. Same as there's only ever going to be one 'first man on the moon'.

What I want from a bass is to be able to play as well as all those buggers on YouTube who make it look effortless. I haven't noticed that all the best players in the world use the same bass so I'm pretty sure I'm not being held back by my instrument. Worse still, I'm sure a great player could pick up either of my basses and make it sing, so I'm pretty sure that all my shortcomings are down to me