ThomBassmonkey

4s feel strange to me. Though I was playing a 6 string after about 18 months on bass and 10 years later have never had anything lower than a 5er as my main instrument so that probably has something to do with it!

[quote name='mrtcat' timestamp='1363215889' post='2010102'] I think there's a difference between might not enjoy and don't feel safe. Safety is paramount in any workplace whether it's casual work, hobby work, primary income etc etc. everybody has the right to walk away if they don't feel safe surely. [/quote] If that's the case, then fair enough. He didn't specify though. I've known a lot of very violent people in my years but there's not many that would start fights with random people, they tend to find like minded boneheads to beat the snot out of each other. I never assume someone is dangerous to the average person now just because someone calls them violent.

I got the normal Polytune. 2 reasons, the mini doesn't support polytune for bass (i'm sure it'd work but it might not be as accurate) and it doesn't use batteries, you have to use mains power for it.

I think there's more to think about. You're getting paid so you're working for it, even if it's not your primary income, it's still a case of being paid to do something you might not enjoy. if you want to treat it as a hobby that you can chop and change depending on the wind, you shouldn't put landlords in a place where you can let them down. The guy's reliably paid you and it's not his fault what clients his pub pulls in, he probably doesn't need his entertainment pulling out on him with no time to replace. It could be damaging to your reputation if you pull out for a vague reason or one you should've known about previously, especially if he's involved in other pubs or mates with other landlords. I'd at least go there first and check it out.before doing anything. You might go along and it's fine. Without knowing anything first hand, you're risking your band's reputation for hearsay and rumours.

Cheers Ian! It'd be much appreciated if any votes swung our way, I have my fingers crossed! I'm sure there's more guys on here that have been nominated, JoeyStrange is up for a few with JD and the FDCs (though you don't wanna vote for him in bassist, that should be mine! ) I'm not aware of anyone else that's been nominated but there could be more. Ian, are you going down to the "ceremony" (that makes it sound way more glamourous than it is haha)?

You actually quoted me saying a recording. Possibly the best example (of many) of you warping what has been said to suit your needs to you can sustain a pointless argument because you appear to have some kind of need to tell people on the internet they're wrong. I'm done now anyway. This thread has run it's course. There's no point trying to discuss something if I feel I'm banging my head against a brick wall for someone else's entertainment while they intentionally mis-read everything that anyone says just for the benefit of trying to appear "right" about an opinion.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361634648' post='1988598'] The idea of Patent is that it ensures all the design details reach the public domain eventually,so that the technology can be exploited by others, the short term protection is in exchange for that. Plus you has to be actively done and you have to establish that the design is new and unique in a very real way (the office will take your money though, but it won't protect an unoriginal design). Apply that concept to music copyright, and see how they are very different things. [/quote] The reason that Patents are done like that is because with new technology, if it's something in demand enough, companies could end up monopolising the market which isn't good for the public. I was talking about the original concept of protecting the creator, though I'm sure you know that despite what your post implies. I struggle to imagine a situation in which a single recording monopolises the entire music industry.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461'] It doesn't make any difference what you or I think, the world will change and we have no control over it. Starvation and inequality could be stopped very easily if the people who run the world wanted it and things will not improve gradually over time just because ordinary people want it to.[/quote] It's very easy to say "I have no control over anything" then let people lead you around blindly. Or you could stand up, voice an opinion and maybe make a change. [quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']I don't remember saying anyone's life would stop by voicing an opinion, although there are many examples of the phenomenon. I fully respect your opinion, even though I disagree and I'm sure you will show me the same courtesy. Metallica are one of many bands who don't like file sharing and I understand their POV, but it won't make any difference, whether they like it or not.[/quote] Peoples' lives don't stop because they voice an opinion, it stops because other people have an extreme stance on it, but that's something else entirely. Of course I respect your (and everyone else's) opinions, I wouldn't be making the points I do about individuals mattering in the big picture if I felt that everyone had to fall into line. Metallica not liking it made a huge difference. It didn't eradicate it but it did get rid of the biggest file sharing site at the time as well as bringing it into the public eye. [quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']I would be pleased if someone liked my music enough to copy and share it, they are spreading the word and that can lead to more lucrative forms of income in the long run. You can't stop it anyway and being sour about it won't change anything.[/quote] I'm not sour about it, I understand it happens and like I've said, I've talked to people who've bought CDs then said they're going to copy it for their mate (who's stood next to them and could quite easily buy one). I don't feel the need to rant and rave about it, it's one thing though that they like the music and want to share it, it's another thing if they like the music and want to support the artist that made it. I know which I'd prefer. I've lost count of the amount of CDs or digital songs we've sent off to radio stations and the like, that's different (referring to your previous point) but I like to think that people would want to support the bands that entertain them. Call it faith in humanity. [quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']How do you know that? It works for thousands of other bands and it doesn't mean you should stop doing what you are already doing.[/quote] Because our sales directly fund the things we do, whether it's going out and gigging, making more recordings, promoting ourselves, getting videos made which then end up on Kerrang and the like. Without the money from sales we'd be far more limited in how much we could promote ourselves. People still need to have heard of us to share us with their friends and that isn't going to happen without things like the promotion. [quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361627505' post='1988461']You assume too much, but perhaps you are right and you along with all your supporters will stop file sharing. I sincerely hope not, it will be a dark day for mankind.[/quote] It wasn't actually a serious assumption, it was tongue in cheek. I would hope that you do vote (that's something specific that people have died for the sake of voicing their opinion and allowing us to do the same) and that you support people that want equal rights. I'm not sure why giving musicians control over their music would be a bad thing though. The thing is that for me it comes down to giving people control over their own product. Say that piracy is stopped 100% instantly, if what you say is true, that giving away your music is more beneficial to you than wanting people to pay for it, it wouldn't hurt you in any way. In fact it would be beneficial since you wouldn't have to compete with bands like mine for the free music market since apart from the tracks we decide to give away, we'd be in different areas. And if what you say is true, bands like mine would crash and burn since we wouldn't have the free promotion, as you think of it. So why are you so pro piracy? Why's it a BAD thing that bands should have control over what happens with their music? Arguing that music being available for free being beneficial is one thing, I don't even disagree with it, it can work for some bands (like yours), depending on their fanbase and business model. Saying that bands don't have the right to release their own music and charge for it if they want is something else and something I definitely don't agree with. I have no problems at all with file sharing and free releases, it's the lack of respect for the artist's wishes that's the issue.

[quote name='redstriper' timestamp='1361623903' post='1988411'] I absolutely agree with this. Why is it the people who are least affected by file sharing seem most upset by it? Thom - how much is your band actually losing as a result of file sharing? My band has all it's music available for free download and we have received international airplay and good gigs as a direct result - these have brought in more money than selling a few CDs at gigs, (which we still do of course). File sharing is hear to stay whether you like it or not and individuals agreeing or disagreeing with it isn't going to change anything. [/quote] If you think the world shouldn't change, then you're in the very extreme minority. I, for one, don't think that people should continue to starve to death, be abused or be ripped off for their work. We're working towards ideals and although they might be a long way off, they're ideals, not immediate plans. Of course you could roll over and accept that these things happen, but I think it'd be nice for things to improve over time, even if it's after we're all dead and buried, someone can still enjoy the progress we've made. Anyone has a right to voice their opinion, it doesn't mean their life stops because of it. As for the least affected, the first people to realy kick up a fuss and bring it to peoples' attention was Metallica, although I'm sure they're comfy with the amount they're earning anyway, I highly doubt that it's small amounts they're losing to piracy. Arguably for small bands, it's more of a problem because every penny counts. I don't know how much my band is losing, I know that our music has been pirated (punters have told me that their mate won't buy a CD because they'll just copy it and I expect most wouldn't say) but there's no way of tracking it. That's obviously a business model that works well for your band, that's nice for you but it doesn't work for all bands and it definitely wouldn't work for mine. File sharing is here to stay, I've already said that. I couldn't disagree with your last statement more though. One individual is part of the human race, if enough people agree with something, then that's what forces change. If you really believe that statement, I assume you don't vote either because you're just an individual and your opinion doesn't matter and you think that activists like Martin Luther King etc should've kept quiet because they were just one person?

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1361619542' post='1988319'] In law they're very similar, but both are dependent on the owner of it maintaining their position of ownership. Rickenbacker do, Fender didn't for eg. It's why the big thing about sampling occurred years ago, you have to establish a unique point, but what you have doesn't have to be entirely unique. If that was the case there's be thousands of cases of plagiarism because a bar of notes was copyrighted by someone. Similarly on the patent side, Trevor Bayliss didn't invent radio, nor clockwork mechanisms; but he put the two together & is doing very well off it. As I said earlier, there are many who ignore copyrights & patents, some get caught for it, many more get away with it. Mostly because the actual owner or their agents aren't aware of it, or aren't until it's too late. iTunes is more by comparison a distributor role than a record company role, the big labels were complacent of their position - and still are, mostly because of "won't be my problem by then" thinking by individuals. Also because they do assume, this isn't a guess or speculation, it's fact; that there will be methods in place to prevent major piracy, if not all, by the time it becomes essential to them. Last I heard they were saying 4 years from now, tick-tock, tick-tock. [/quote] I think we're agreeing, but just to clarify I'm talking about the concept of copyright and patents and what they're actually designed to do and who they're suppost to protect being very similar (the creator). I totally agree, allowing piracy would be like Fender's mistake, it'd make it harder to protect in the future and it'd become the norm. I was referring to iTunes (and the usage of it by the record industry) because it's been embraced and is widely used as an example that the industry does keep up with technology, that's where it differs from examples like Kodak. I doubt music will ever be pirate-free. Whatever security measures they put in place, unless we end up with a DRM type system that is used in gaming (and I honestly can't see how it would work in music which is still sold on CDs) then whatever security is protecting music will be hackable.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361591247' post='1988085'] They are full on different things. To have Patent protection, you have to have filed all of the details that make something unique with the Patent office, including having established it is new and unique, and paid a fee to the office. You have to pay and make an effort to acquire a Patent, and establish its new in express terms that can be published. If that was a requirement for music, then there would be no protection for music, because nothing really new is going on there, and to get the protection, you'd have to state what makes it new and different to anything that has gone before. And once the period has expired, anyone if free to work with that idea however they wish. You can go and browse all the designs for anything patented right now, and use them as you wish. [/quote] I'm aware of the differences in practicalities, I'm asking you what the difference in the concept is. Both patents and copyright are based on someone creating something then having the ability to control it's use. I understand that most ideas in music have been used before, but that doesn't mean that anything sounds like the outcome, that's why it's copywritable (the lyrics and melody at least). [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361611942' post='1988166'] The music industry is being dragged along by new technology under protest. That's a subtle difference to fully embracing it. Not really. It went downhill because it didn't embrace the [u]replacement[/u] technology. Again, a subtle difference and all the more ironic in Kodak's case because it had actually pioneered digital photography. My point about no one being deprived of anything was actually specific to the earlier point made about someone downloading a copy of a vinyl album they already. But since you missed that point, let's go with what you wrote above. The scenarios you describe are based on a load of 'ifs'. IF all those things happened then I tend to agree with your predicted outcomes. But the reality is rather different and all those IFS doesn't seem to be happening to the extremes needed for your predicted decimation of the music industry. I think you're mistaking my points as being supportive of piracy, but they're not. I'm looking at why piracy happens and accepting that it all this moralising and hand-wringing isn't going to stop it. I don't think the music business has yet accepted this and thinks it can use the law to stop it, despite the history of it never having worked ever since people have had the technology to copy things. But this ability to copy things for free has not been the huge disaster everyone continues to predict has it? So why keep banging on about it? Why not move on and deal with the world as it is instead of wishing it was different. The music industry's lack of vision is the reason that Apple is raking in the billions from iTunes instead of the music companies. As for small bands suffering because piracy means less support from the music industry, does anyone really believe this anymore? Digital technology and the Internet means that small bands don' t need the support of the music industry any more. They are empowered today like never before and can create their own stuff, in their own studios, to amazing quality standards and reach out to millions of potential fans. Surely a bit of inevitable piracy is a price worth paying for such capabilities? [/quote] I disagree, I think the music industry as been relatively quick to pick up the new platform as it became available. iTunes was an overnight success because of it. The industry's also supported digital sales by advertising "available on [insert DD outlet]" rather than trying to shun them. Re the vinyl then yeah. others have been making the point about music as a whole though so apologies for my misunderstanding. What you're missing is that if we tell people "yes, it's ok to pirate music, go ahead" then give them a pat on the back and send them on their way, more people will do it. It's unavoidable but that doesn't mean it should be encouraged. If as many people as possible are encouraged to buy music then it's good for everyone. I didn't say small bands in relation to the industry, I mean how small bands are directly affected. When my band goes out to try and sell our music, it doesn't matter what the industry thinks, we do it ourselves. If we didn't sell music (mainly on CDs at gigs) then we'd have very little income, we definitely wouldn't be able to do videos, travel all over the country etc. My band is empowered, as you say. Our singer is an engineer in a studio, we manage ourselves, we hire a promoter to get us about. The risk of piracy is definitely worth it, but that doesn't at all mean it should be viewed as acceptable.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361529630' post='1986942'] Not sure about that analogy. Yes music is still in demand despite all the technology changes, but so is photography. The things no longer in demand are vinyl, cassettes, and photo film and transparencies. The music industry has not really embraced new technology and seemingly wants to retain its old business models. It also wasn't the music business that set up iTunes that has revolutionised music sales. Kodak, though, is quite a good analogy for the music business. As previously noted, it actually invented digital cameras and was an early player, but the management couldn't see the potential and didn't embrace the change. Dinosaurs is a word that comes to mind. [/quote] So what's wrong with the analogy? The same thing is relevant for photography, if you want original prints you go to the photographer or whoever is doing the printing. Most photographers protect their work as best as they can by watermarking it or putting text across the main body of the image so it can be previewed without being used without the photographer's permission. How is the music industry not keeping up with technology? Digital downloads are the newest technology to really affect it and it's embraced that. It doesn't really matter who had the idea originally, the point is that the music industry has moved with the times and isn't in any way obsolete, either technologically or in demand. The only things that are arguably not good enough is security on music and the laws that don't do a good enough job protecting digital content. As time goes on, it'll probably turn out that piracy will be unavoidable anyway as precedents are being set in court cases based on out-dated laws anyway. Kodak went downhill because of the medium they used and promoted becoming outdated. As you said, photography is still in demand. If there was a company that specialised in minidisks and refused to make any other type of player, they'd probably have gone out of business like Kodak did, it doesn't affect the industry as a whole. [quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361542029' post='1987232'] Patents are a different thing because the purpose of of Patent law is that you pay for the protection, both in money, and by submitting all the relevant design info to the patent office, in exchange for short term legal protection of the IP, and at the end of that period, the information becomes public domain (its public already, but protected) so that everyone can benefit from the technology. That's why in fast technology sectors like racing cars and such, they don't do the Patent thing because they are trying to keep a season ahead of each other, and by the time the patent stuff is done with its already too late, so better to just keep your stuff a secret and actually keep it out of competitors hands. [/quote] What is the difference between the concept of a patent and copyright? A patent protects the creater (or owner) of the concept from having the thing that they've invested time and money being used by others for their own means without permission. Copyright does exactly the same thing. I'm not sure of the relevance of what racing cars do though, music (the actual art) isn't about staying ahead of the competition. Are you saying that if there was a centralised way of copyrighting something where you paid your money and sent in a copy of the material that you should be given better protection by law? [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1361543279' post='1987266'] No more morally wrong than doing 80mph on an empty motorway, I'd say. No one is deprived of anything. No one is harmed. Heck, no one would even [u]know[/u]. [/quote] I'm still not sure how you can say that no one is deprived of anything. If you think that piracy is justifiable then presumably you think everyone can justify it. If everyone pirated music then professional recording artists and songwriters would be deprived of a job. A few pirated copies doesn't do a lot of damage but if everyone pirated music instead of supporting the industry then it will collapse. Industries (almost any industry, it's the way of capitalism) are supported by the end consumer. Take away the consumer's money and the industry can't support it's self. Saying "it's not theft because nothing has been removed from the victim's posession" is technically true, but the flip side is that if they own full rights to something and say "you can only own a copy of this on the condition that you pay us a fee" then you listen to it, arguably you've deprived them of that money. Realistically, how do you expect small bands to make money? As Mr. Foxen pointed out, originals bands have a hard time getting paid for gigs and if we don't make money from music sales then where is the income coming from? All that would happen then is that the people with the money (the labels, though I'm sure they'd move into management, booking etc if there was no money in recorded music) would have even more power because small bands won't be able to promote themselves and work their way up until they've got enough fans to do big releases. It's ok if you have money to spend promoting your band just to get some paid gigs, but I doubt many people would have that kind of cash going spare. If you want more diversity in music, wanting to remove new bands' main source of income is a bit backwards.

It's interesting that people liken the music industry (and labels) to things like Kodak and Jessops. Kodak and Jessops got out-paced by the market and left behind, the things they provided weren't in mass demand any longer. In the music industry, the product is still very much in demand and the industry has kept up to date (the latest technology is downloads and it's easy as pie to get things onto iTunes, Amazon etc, most things that get released go through there). The same goes for the ice analogy used way earlier in the thread. IMO copyright follows the same kind of logic as patents and intellectual property. If someone's created something that other people want, it should be within their control to do as they want with it, including selling it or sharing it for free. For me it'd be no different if (for example) Microsoft took apart a PS4 when they get their hands on one then reproduced it using their own factories and sold it for less money. Sony haven't had anything go missing but it'd definitely impact on Sony's sales and the effort that went into designing the PS4 by Sony would be a total loss as no one would buy their consoles so they wouldn't see any profit from it.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1361413712' post='1985712'] But recording and releasing said material is a very strange way to express that opinion. [/quote] There's a huge gap between wanting your music to be shared and wanting to give it away when you're needing to make money from it just to keep the band ticking over. Are you focussed more on gigging, recording or just playing for your own enjoyment? I picked up on it on the last page in heminder's post that he called his recorded music a portfolio. It makes sense thinking about it as that if you aim to get paid for gigs (i.e. the comissioned pieces) and the recordings are there purely as a promotional tool to aid that. It also fits in with some of the things you've said. Obviously it's different if you aim to profit directly from your recordings (as my band does, or at least to re-invest the profit from sales back into the band) as each CD copied is a potential sale lost. Assuming you see gigs as the earner, that's probably why we're not seeing eye to eye. Again of course it's different if you simply want a tangible memory of something you've done and enjoyed. If that's the reason you record music then I doubt you'd mind people sharing it either.

So all the points I've made about "if a musician expects to get paid.." etc have washed over you both? My band makes recordings because it funds us to do more gigs, record more music that our fans enjoy and promote ourselves. If we didn't make money from recordings, we would have significantly less gigs, fans couldn't own our music (however they obtained it because we couldn't afford to record it) and we couldn't promote ourselves. My band also makes recordings because we enjoy it, we enjoy people listening to our music, enjoying gigs and generally the fun that everyone has surrounding our music so we ALSO release free downloads. Downloads that no one has to pay for, they can end up on torrents, anyone can copy them and do whatever they want with them. These are paid for DIRECTLY by the sales we get from our other music. I have never, not once, EVER stated that I'm against file sharing. I'm not, it's wonderful, it's been an absolutely essential tool in getting new music out and about for laods of bands, including mine. Even assuming (wrongly) I was, I've shared loads of things with friends by having them listen to my music, they didn't need a copy for me to share it with them. Telling me that I don't deserve to have my music shared doesn't just mean that I don't deserve it on torrents etc, it means that people shouldn't tell tell their friends about it, bring people to gigs, tell them to listen when it's on TV, show them CDs etc. That's crossing a line between standing your ground on your opinion and being offensive and wishing ill for the sake of it.