Big_Stu

[quote name='Ou7shined' timestamp='1392112912' post='2364716']btw I think it was Princess Anne [/quote] I think she got if from Norman Stanley Fletcher, a habitual criminal.

Chat is good as long as it's natural, worse is cracking the same jokes or patter the next time you play there. Even if you get any kind of good rep at a venue it will be remembered as "seen them once".

"Solid Gold T.Rex", on vinyl!!! .......... and not "Queen's Greatest Hits"; this household is not one of the 6 million of the UK which has it. [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26121239"]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26121239[/url] Doesn't surprise me, when I worked in the CD factory I used to see it go through at least twice a week on a healthy run quantity too.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1391992707' post='2363449']As for continuing after the magic was gone: if some other groups continued to outlive their welcome, the Beatles, for whatever reasons, didn't. Once the 'sell by' date was up (in their view...), they stopped. Is that good or bad..? A judgement call, surely, but I can think of quite a few 'old farts' who would have better held my esteem if they'd done the same. To each his/her own, of course... Just sayin'.[/quote] I beat you to it a long time ago - do try to keep up - just sayin' [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. I won't go to The Stones are still playing 40+ years later because IMHO they should have packed that in a decade+ ago.[/quote] Chuck Berry's thoughts are more financially orientated that he'll keep playing for as long as folk keep paying. His cash obsessed aim against the system that screwed him financially several times is very well documented.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391991505' post='2363441'] Another example of their innovation? Quite brave to turn their backs on touring I'd have thought. 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] Beach Boys, Moody Blues, & The Stones & had the same problem to different extents, they didn't stop touring or gigging. The beatles took the easy cop-out, which gave them a head start in exploring, though as I said, the Moodys & the beach Boys were also releasing ground-breaking recordings at the same time. [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391991505' post='2363441']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] Because - as I've already said - Chuck Berry was shouting long & hard, along with Bo Diddley & Little Richard about how writing your own material was the way to go & taking care of your own business so you don't get ripped off. This was around when "the Beatles" were still playing skiffle & a few years before they were playing rock n roll covers. They couldn't have failed to have heard of that controversy. Before Chuck Berry, and apart from the Les Paul & Wes Montgomery type players the guitar was still largely, in the public eye, just another big band instrument.....that's how much influence he had.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391988247' post='2363406']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] Just for a change this time around; can we PLEASE have anyone point out - because this is the same reason the last Beatles thread descended into a primary school playground - PLEASE point out where anyone AT ALL has said that they weren't "influential"?? 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. As a rock band they couldn't hack what the main purpose of most rock bands is. I won't go to The Stones are still playing 40+ years later because IMHO they should have packed that in a decade+ ago. 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. Then of course, there's all of the Beatles admissions that without George Martin there would have been far less progress.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1391971776' post='2363158'] Wheee! Let's have a big Beatles v Stones argument/rant!! [/quote] can't do that, the Beatles/Stones comparison/argument/rant traditionally doesn't start until page 24 of these threads ......... remember? my comment was a pre-emptive strike.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1391968225' post='2363100']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.[/quote] 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. Almost all of those who the Beatles members freely cited as influences were those who escaped the confines of being locked into writing "partnerships" eg Elvis, who wrote few of his hits & therefore lost a large wedge of potential income. They - eventually - wrote & played their own songs, as did Holly, Chuck Berry, Carl Perkins, Little Richard, Bo Diddley. But at the time of the fledgling Beatles the scandal of Payola was common knowledge which had done a lot of damage to the careers of those 3 black artists, writing your own material removed most of any possibility of being ripped off. Something Chuck made very little secret about. Chuck Berry once threatened to sue Lennon for plagiarism but they sorted it out friendly-ish, which made them good friends - or as much as anyone can be with Chuck. They also would have encountered many other bands doing the band revues and matinee circuits & taken notes off their encounters, eg The Animals who wrote few of their hits - if any? - and were royally screwed with ££s. Fact is it's only arsehole threads ad nauseum like these that puts rivalry and one-upmanship where there wasn't any at the time, quite often the opposite. Someone mentioned The Moody Blues earlier & was very wrongly dismissed, they were hugely noted. With them they were writing their own concept album "Days Of Future Past" at the time Sgt Peppers was released & of course Pet Sounds which was a real ground-breaker was out IIRC the year before?? Bottom line for me is that despite having a good half dozen+ of Beatles albums they do very little for me. I very rarely get the urge or have an ear-worm of one of their songs. They just don't [i]move me[/i], now The Stones?? Oh well, The Stones, oh man!!

Any decent DIY shop, (not your B&Qs type jobbies) should be able to find new "bolts" (not screws) to match the thread in your pickup. They should also find one for the missing one on your G machine. Failing that on your pickup a couple of self-tapping screws would work, maybe get a bit of fuel-line or similar if you have a model-shop near you to work as springs. Very nice bass btw - you've done a good job.

[quote name='Dave Vader' timestamp='1360511618' post='1971464'] Buddy Holly.[/quote] 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

Glad to hear the nanny state doesn't exist then; that's one thing that really gets my goat.

Had "De Guella" blasting off the turntable this afternoon. Glorious! I could have been sat in the Alamo!

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1391684272' post='2360051'] Knobs for an East Pre ?[/quote] Sounds like a fair swop, don't think you'll get many volunteers though.

Did you spec that string gauge to him? Looks like the strings been rattling around in a (too big) slot & filed it away making it even bigger.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1391693074' post='2360233']I thought that's what you meant when you said "God preserve us" The good news is that once you've made yourself into a jam, you'll feed the future of the human race.[/quote] He doesn't do jamming sessions, remember?

[quote name='crashdesk' timestamp='1391694805' post='2360273'] you get this film like residue of a sticker on it. If you keep trying to polish it you end up just moving it all over the bass.[/quote] Lighter fuel, (petrol not gas) will take that off in seconds and evaporates so quickly it doesn't go everywhere. WD40 is claimed to do the same but I wouldn't want to risk that going into electrics. You might want to check out a Gibson guitar renovation kit, which has renovation polish, lemon oil & metal cleaner, polishing cloths & a diddy brush for bridge cleaning, all in one pack - I paid about £10 for mine....... [url="http://www.musicjunkie.co.uk/product/Gibson-Vintage-Reissue-Guitar-Restoration-Kit?gclid=CLXZlcHYt7wCFQQGwwod6hMAxg"]http://www.musicjunkie.co.uk/product/Gibson-Vintage-Reissue-Guitar-Restoration-Kit?gclid=CLXZlcHYt7wCFQQGwwod6hMAxg[/url]

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1391684454' post='2360057'] Some like lemon oil, personally, I'd rather use linseed oil - it seals the pores of the timber.[/quote] I'm guessing you mean Boiled linseed oil as opposed to standard "raw" linseed oil? The raw will take ages to dry, on a wood like rosewood possibly days. Boiled linseed is a cocktail, does the same job, not quite as long lasting, but dries quickly. Using lemon oil based cleaner is safe if done every six months never any more, over-use can loosen the frets. There's nothing to stop you polishing the neck with other polishes in-between times. Finding a place that will re-chrome cheaply won't be as easy as it was, it causes a lot of pollution & many have given up. It's an expensive process so many of those that do prefer to wait until there's a batch of items to be done together to make it cost effective for them, which can mean a long wait for parts to be returned. Nickel plating is more easily available. The OP has a plater that can do both in "NewtownAbbey" who could advise??

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1391628366' post='2359477'] There's been several of us stating in this thread that we use 3mm Big Stubbies. [/quote] ......and the colour's nearly as purdy as an old time Cadbury's foil wrapper, which is a bonus.

[quote name='crashdesk' timestamp='1391640526' post='2359764'] I know there are various threads and info scattered around here and the internet at large but I was hoping to get all that in one place, here and for it to be bespoke to my bass. I have an old music master bass which is in okay condition. Main things are that there are chips out if the body and the laquer is coming off the head. I don't want to fully restore the bass as this adds character but I do wang to clean it up a bit. Main areas are: 1. Fret board and frets (rosewood). Just some gunk and tarnished. 2. Bridge including string saddles. There is done rust in these. 3. Tunjng keys and string guide. Slightly rusted. Any advice in how to clean these up properly would be greatly appreciated :-) Thanks, Clinton [/quote] How old is old? Old enough to have a nitro finish, or just looks old, a bit shabby? A bottle of Lemon Oil cleaner will work wonders on the neck. Available for not much at any decent guitar shop or the i'net. Put it on a cloth not onto the wood & rub it in & it'll clean the rosewood and the frets. Repeat the process every six months & it'll keep the neck in good nick. The hard ware will be either chrome or nickel plated depending on age. what was called "Duraglit" but is now "Brasso" wadding will be good on the rust, but if it's established hard rust it probably won't get rid of it completely. But it's also good for cleaning up a grubby bass body too. Don't do it too hard on the body (assuming it looks a bit dull too) IF it's a nitro finish it is possible for that polish to be rubbed through it, especially on a sunburst finish.

I'm so old I can remember the days when it was called "stage left"...............or stage right, as the case may be. exeunt...............

Now it was "just a story" Point 15 [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26045864"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-26045864[/url]

Reading all this has put my vinyl head on again. Just been "checking my set-up" with a "new" LP by Booker T & The MGs. It's in mono, so it's ideal for finding centre placement between the speakers.

Just to add for the OP that I've suggested the 533, which I believe would have to be used as it's discontinued, as the £ saved could go towards a new stylus. I wouldn't trust the history of a used stylus on any of my vinyl However, I would agree that it won't be as good as the Planar 3, otherwise Rega wouldn't have made the 3 and stayed with the 2. I've also had the Project range suggested several times but Practical Hi-fi of Preston (now part of Sevenoaks IIRC) said I didn't nee done after looking over my NAD - just a new belt - and they reckoned the NAD was better than the Projects FWIW; which I found incredibly refreshingly honest & kudos to them.

[quote name='Bassassin' timestamp='1389288722' post='2332451']CMIs were a bit of a mixed bag. Like a lot of UK brands they had a several different quality levels in their range and they sourced from several different factories, probably based on who was doing the best deal at the time. Most of what turns up tends to be the lower-end stuff (probably because they sold more of them) and while not awful, they're low-to-middling quality, similar, if not the same as Columbus or Avon. CMI didn't only come from Japan, either - I had a CMI-branded Ned Callan bass a few years ago, BCer Razze06 has it now. Jon. [/quote] isn't there a Marshall link there somewhere? In a similar vein to the Park brand to get around a poor distribution deal Marshall were in at the time.

[quote name='2x18' timestamp='1391417592' post='2356774'] This thread has just reminded me I have an old Thorens TD-150 with a SME 3009 arm and Shure M95 cartridge in a Teak housing stored away, anybody have any idea of its value? Will. [/quote] You could try joining this forum [url="http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=20"]http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=20[/url] Many experts on high-end hi-fi & they also have a buy/sell area for members, a mate of mine has two Linn systems from there which he paid a lot less than the going rate for.