BGM! Is it all that?

[discreet]

[quote name='Bassman Sam' timestamp='1336177032' post='1642281']
Yeah, you can't wipe yourself with an iPad.
[/quote]

Brings new meaning to 'log off'

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1336144369' post='1641630']
It's not really a case of what is being reviewed that bothers me, it's the fact that practically everything gets a pretty positive review.
[/quote]

This is always going to be a difficult one for any publication that relies on advertising to fund its existence. Slag a product off (even it it really deserves it) and the manufacturer will pull their ads and there goes some of money you need to actually put the magazine out in the first place. Also IME the majority of review instruments are supplied by manufacturers and distributors. Give them a negative review and you won't be getting any more instruments. The current economics of magazine publication rely on the production being funded by selling advertising space and the fact that they don't have to go out and actually buy the instruments and equipment that is being reviewed. Until someone comes up with an alternative way of making a musical instrument publication financially viable we're going to have to live with the fact that instruments doing badly in a review are going to be a rarity.

[dc2009]

[quote name='dave_bass5' timestamp='1336144077' post='1641623']
I think with the advent of the internet everybody is a lot more informed these days, especially the kids who are growing up with all this info at their finger tips.
[/quote]

I am one of these kids so to speak (21 now), but I subscribed to BGM (it seemed like an ideal gift to ask for as a teenager) for a couple of years. After perhaps 2 maybe 3 subscriptions I packed it in. As the OP says, I just couldn't deal with the incessant reviews of basses I couldn't afford. I don't ever particularly remember a 'best bass for under £500' feature or best starter bass or anything similar like that. I also didn't have the money to rush out and buy a set of fancy strings even, just because they'd been advertised in BGM. I actually tended to enjoy their rock bias with interviews, but there is only so much I care about when they're a player of relatively dull, uninspired lines.

I soon learned that there are a wealth of free online interviews, especially on youtube which can be part interview part demonstration (free tuition from Vic Wooten!) as well as endless gear reviews online of things I can and can't afford. I tend to subscribe to magazines for a while, I've had the economist on the go for about 6 months now, but they'd really need to turnaround BGM for me to start buying it again.

IMO I think if they went halvsies with a US magazine, that was perhaps able to pull in bigger stars for interviews, but did their own reviews, that might be a way around it.

[steve-bbb]

tbh ive not even looked at bgm but i would hazard a guess that they have perhaps fallen for the idea that their reputation and esteem will be reflected by shiney content and inadvertently fall into the trap of alienating their readership - aspirational is fine but when there is no variety or range then after a while it will just start to smack of elitism

maybe they need to take time and have a meeting and take a serious look at their target demographic and exactly who they are aiming at - i cant even afford a £500 bass but once in a blue moon let alone a £3000 one and i doubt if i even bothered to look at bgm i would make it to the back cover if as other posters abive say, it is nothing but page after page of expensive and shiny beyond my budget

Edited May 6, 2012 by steve-bbb

[BigRedX]

[quote name='paul_5' timestamp='1336144687' post='1641636']
All of this. I used to enjoy the technique stuff when there was a bit more variation (solo bass arrangements, more theory based stuff), but now I've outgrown the cycle of funk / learn to read music / triad shapes that seem to frequent bass magazines.

That's my fault though, [i]not[/i] BGMs.
[/quote]

And here's another thing. Everybody wants different things from a magazine. IMO those pages of techniques, exercises and transcriptions are a complete waste of space. I find that working stuff out for myself far more satisfying and beneficial in the long run than the instant gratification of "see music, play music" as presented in the magazines, and when you get something wrong but that in turn leads to you discovering something completely new that's far more useful. Plus these days no matter how detailed your written instructions and accompanying score/tab is, it is completely outclassed by 15 seconds of good YouTube video.

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='dmccombe7' timestamp='1336147166' post='1641708']
I also feel that I'm starting to lose a little interest.
I think reviews with more prominent well known bassists who have gained experience over many yrs or many gigs would be a more interesting option. Many of the bassists I haven't heard of but that might be an age thing.
[/quote]

I don't know where this view is coming from, the last issue had a fairly heavy interview with Mark Hoppus, and if you haven't at least heard of him then you have been under a rock the last 20 years....
He may not be the most amazing player but he has played bass for the last 20 years, and sold more records than we have probably had hot dinners put together. He also does play some reasonablly complex things on the new album, while singing!

The section on people we don't know has barely been a 2 page spread, in one it had Rise Against bassist, who in the past hasn't been the typical punk rock bassist with the same stereotyped bass sound. In another issue it was barely a page. Hardly something to complaion about and exaggerate it being full of people no one knows........... I also repeat the point that it gives everyday working bassists a lot more coverage than they could probably achieve on their own, and also if you were truely interested in new music you could check out many of the facebook pages that have a url in the same little piece.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1336298322' post='1643583']
.........instruments doing badly in a review are going to be a rarity.
[/quote]

I realise this, was always the same for game magazines, I used to buy those a lot. I had all three of the last generation(thanks parents) and buying the nintendo mag was always a minefield reviews for stroking ponies and pretending to cook always got pretty favoured response when in actual fact they played like trying to catch bee's in a 2ml jam jar, full of wholes, in the middle of winter, naked, while in bed, with a beautiful woman.

But there is difference between being negative and critical.
Bass gear magazine (that online thing) I enjoy as the reviews are fairly informative.

[dave_bass5]

I just spent almost an hour reading the May edition on my iPad. I was surprised at how long I spent with it, and i didnt bother reading any of the reviews.
Other than the odd looking P and Jazz basses all the others were way out of my price range and had either too many strings or not enough frets. I can see how these reviews might be nice for those who can't afford them, a bit like window shopping but I don't think for the average reader they hold any interest.
I'm in too minds about the fact that they all get good reviews but I see it as why bother wasting space with rubbish. I guess they are just giving us the good stuff. Not a bad thing really.

I feel like this about most Mags so it's not aimed directly at BGM, I also subscribe to the electronic version of T3 and I don't think I've ever found something I can afford in that mag.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='gary mac' timestamp='1336144692' post='1641637']
Why do they in BGM mark the expensive basses with a minus? Really gets me wound up. The price isn't the minus, the minus would be, if it wasn't worth the money or there was something wrong with the design/build.
[/quote]

It's the same as marking down all the basses that don't look like a Fender P or J. Entirely subjective. You could just as easily criticise all the Fender clones for not being more exciting visually.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='daz' timestamp='1336188680' post='1642314']
And as for those [i]bass academy [/i]members that nobody has heard of. WHO CARES!!! STOP putting them in the bloody magazine.
[/quote]

It's actually thinly disguised advertising. So long as it pays for another 7 pages of bass reviews and interviews with more interesting musicians and luthiers I'll tolerate it.

Actually I'd worry more about the poor musician being featured in these "articles" not are they being forced to play a MM bass, but they can't say anything really telling about the course.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='dc2009' timestamp='1336298443' post='1643588']
As the OP says, I just couldn't deal with the incessant reviews of basses I couldn't afford. I don't ever particularly remember a 'best bass for under £500' feature or best starter bass or anything similar like that. I also didn't have the money to rush out and buy a set of fancy strings even, just because they'd been advertised in BGM.
[/quote]

But you don't need BGM (or any other magazine) for this. A couple of afternoons spent in your local musical instrument shop(s) is going to tell you far more about sub £500 basses and which (if any) are right for you then any number of pages of written reviews ever can.

IMO there's nothing wrong with reading about instruments you can't afford right now. You'll get a bit of an idea whether they are going to be worth tracking down should you ever be in a position to spend that kind of money on one. I can remember reading about Gus Guitars for the first time back in the mid 80s. At the time I couldn't even remotely afford to buy one, plus they were still at the prototype and development stage, so even if I had the cash they weren't available to buy. However 15 years later when I did have the money available to spend on a guitar and Gus Guitars had gone from being experimental prototypes to production models. Now I have 4...

[Blink]

If we don't support the only specialist UK bass mag then it will disappear for ever and we will threads complaining that there is no specialist UK bass mag.

I would suggest that the quality of far eastern manufacturing makes it very difficult make a bad product these days and even if one did make it to the shops would a magazine waste limited page space reviewing it? That's why you will always see positive reviews.

[dc2009]

[quote name='Blink' timestamp='1336307416' post='1643725']
If we don't support the only specialist UK bass mag then it will disappear for ever and we will threads complaining that there is no specialist UK bass mag.
[/quote]

I watch a fair bit of ice hockey, and there are constantly adverts on the TV for the UK's only/best ice hockey magazine. Even from their advert it looks terrible and I have no inclination to buy it.

To be honest, I think some things are just a bit too niche to be worthy of their own magazine in the UK. If BGM can turn a profit doing what they do then that's great, they deserve it, but I'm not going to spend my money on a product I don't want and certainly don't need, just to prop up a niche industry.

I also follow the UK american football scene. Because it is so small, the would-be magazine writers instead write free to read blogs and twitter/fb pages. These have proven relatively popular, and the writers get enough income to keep it going from minor advertising revenue - to be honest, I think this is probably the level of popularity bass has in the UK, and perhaps models like it or the ibassmag are the future, not BGM.

[dave_bass5]

[quote name='Blink' timestamp='1336307416' post='1643725']
If we don't support the only specialist UK bass mag then it will disappear for ever and we will threads complaining that there is no specialist UK bass mag.
[/quote]

If it does go under (and i really hope it doesn't) then i think that shows that its not really wanted anyway. I cant see many people who find nothing of interest in it buying it, and these are bass players, the people this mag is aimed at.

[jacko]

[quote name='Blink' timestamp='1336307416' post='1643725']
If we don't support the only specialist UK bass mag then it will disappear for ever and we will threads complaining that there is no specialist UK bass mag..
[/quote]

On the other hand, are you really suggesting we each pay the best part of 4 quid for a magazine that (from the majority of the prior comments) holds no interest for us? Who benefits from that?
I stopped my BGM subscription over a year ago but my better half bought me a copy a month or so ago (with dave ellefson on the cover). I really wish she hadn't - the mag doesn't seem to have changed in the 14 months since I last read it.Took me 10 minutes to flick through and take in the articles that I thought would interest me. Maybe they should just make it an e-mag then we can read whichever bits we want and donate a suitable sum. I reckon the bits I founf worthwhile should have cost me about 50 pence.

Going back umpteen years to when I was a 15 year old hanging out at rock city music in newcastle, the only magazine I found interesting at the time was International Musician and recording world. i still have some of those early mags and often re-read interviews with folk like Jaco. I don't think I've ever re-read a BGM.

[discreet]

To be fair, BGM did recently review a Vintage P clone... £275 or thereabouts.

[thebrig]

Just because it is the "[b][i]only specialist UK bass magazine"[/i][/b], is no reason to shell out money on it, those people who find it a good read will buy it,
but those people like myself, who used to subscribe to it, but now finds it totally uninteresting, will not.
I will probably buy it every now and then to see whether it has improved, and if it does, then maybe I will start buying it regularly again.
But I certainly don't see why I should support it, if it has nothing to offer me.

[BigRedX]

You have to remember that in the past time when there were no specialist single instrument publications and we had to make to with International Musician, Beat Instrumental and a single page in Melody Maker which each cover all the instruments (plus PA and recording equipment) needed for pop/rock bands.

Of course from a bass PoV the choice was also much more limited P, J, EB0/EB3, Thunderbird and 4001 plus copies of those in varying levels of accuracy from the far east so it didn't matter that you were lucky to get one bass review every other month. Since the late 80s though it's all changed and now there's plenty of variety available, lets be thankful that the market is just about large enough to support 2 English language bass printed magazines and an number of on-line publications.

Because of the diversity of instruments (and musical genres) these days, not every review or interview is going to appeal to every reader, and it's rather naive to expect that it should. If there's enough articles of interest to entertain you one month buy it, and if the next month's issue doesn't have anything of interest don't. I would suggest to BGM's new editorial team that multiple reviews of left-handed or 6-string basses in the same issue is probably not a good idea if you want to get enough variety in to maximise your monthly buying audience.

And I wish the reviewer of the Enfield Avenger Bass had the guts to say what everyone is thinking - "It's an abomination". The original Enfield basses were a triumph of tonal versatility and electrical ingenuity in a functional but interesting instrument. The Avenger fails because of the unsympathetic way the way the pickups and electronics have been shoe-horned into the traditional designs. Anyone wanting the versatility first and foremost would have had no problem with the original Canon model and for those who require something traditional looking the Avenger is not it by any stretch of the imagination.

[BB3000S]

The Barefaced column in BGM I quite like!
Have no intention of cancelling my subscription, even though as has been said earlier a LOT of bass and GAS information nowadays comes from fine forums such as this and other sources on the interwebs.

[louisthebass]

I'm probably in the minority, but I actually quite like the magazine for the most part. The lessons are pretty informative (always a good thing), the interviews are ok. I don't really read the magazine for the gear reviews as I think what may work for one person, may not for another.

BGM (to my mind) is still a much better magazine than "Bassist" was in it's dying days. However ...... If BGM [b]ever[/b] resorts to a totally unfunny cartoon to fill it's pages, then I'm not buying another copy.

[Mike Brooks]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1336313253' post='1643815']

And I wish the reviewer of the Enfield Avenger Bass had the guts to say what everyone is thinking - "It's an abomination". The original Enfield basses were a triumph of tonal versatility and electrical ingenuity in a functional but interesting instrument. The Avenger fails because of the unsympathetic way the way the pickups and electronics have been shoe-horned into the traditional designs. Anyone wanting the versatility first and foremost would have had no problem with the original Canon model and for those who require something traditional looking the Avenger is not it by any stretch of the imagination.
[/quote]

As far as I can recall, I don't think I've ever responded to BGM discussions on here, and although there are so many points and topics I could try to explain and go into in order to set a few records straight, I'd rather not as it's not my place.

But in response to the above quote, I reviewed the Enfields in the latest issue and the Enfield back in issue 41. Obviously the 'abomination' view is your opinion, I had the basses for a week, used them on a few live things and thought they were great instruments in their own right, played great, felt very comfortable and gave me all the sounds I wanted to hear from the package. I wasn't that bothered with the pickup aesthetic and the whole point of these coming out is that some big name 'employers' insist their bassist has a bass that looks like a J or P, they pay the money, they can insist on what the player uses. They have an image of a P or J in their heads and that's what they want.

As it is, I'm possibly looking at purchasing one as a 40th birthday present based on my experience of using one. I may go for a Cannon or an Avenger, haven't decided yet but it certainly won't be decided by whether an Avenger looks wrong with a Super 8 pickup! And for the record, I've always spoken my mind when it comes to reviews, always taken gear out to test it in 'the real world', have a look at the Warwick Infinity review back in Issue 29.

All the best,
Mike

[visog]

Nice Rumour in your Avatar picture! Also I think the Avenger looks pretty cool. Better than a Hillman Avenger for those over 40.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='Mike Brooks' timestamp='1336334117' post='1644197']
As far as I can recall, I don't think I've ever responded to BGM discussions on here, and although there are so many points and topics I could try to explain and go into in order to set a few records straight, I'd rather not as it's not my place.

But in response to the above quote, I reviewed the Enfields in the latest issue and the Enfield back in issue 41. Obviously the 'abomination' view is your opinion, I had the basses for a week, used them on a few live things and thought they were great instruments in their own right, played great, felt very comfortable and gave me all the sounds I wanted to hear from the package. I wasn't that bothered with the pickup aesthetic and the whole point of these coming out is that some big name 'employers' insist their bassist has a bass that looks like a J or P, they pay the money, they can insist on what the player uses. They have an image of a P or J in their heads and that's what they want.

As it is, I'm possibly looking at purchasing one as a 40th birthday present based on my experience of using one. I may go for a Cannon or an Avenger, haven't decided yet but it certainly won't be decided by whether an Avenger looks wrong with a Super 8 pickup! And for the record, I've always spoken my mind when it comes to reviews, always taken gear out to test it in 'the real world', have a look at the Warwick Infinity review back in Issue 29.

All the best,
Mike
[/quote]

Thanks for taking the time to respond Mike. I've been a fan of the Enfield concept since I played the original models at the LGS several years ago. If I hadn't found the V-profile neck rather uncomfortable, I'd have probably bought one. I love the super 8 pickup concept and the tonal flexibility that it gives. I also like the way that the Cannon model has been designed and the way the whole package works from a tonal, ergonomic and visual aspect (even if I couldn't get on with the neck shape!)

And this is where I think the new Avenger models fail most miserably. None of the imagination and design skill that went into the Cannon appears to have been used and instead the pickup has seemingly been slapped into place with no effort made to make it look like part of the overall bass design. IMO the P shape bass looks particularly bad. The whole point of these basses is that they need to work on a visual level and because of the unsympathetic way the super 8 pickups and electronics have been implemented I don't think they achieve this.

If you've followed any of my other posts you'll know that I am very keen on having the right instruments visually for a band, but I can't help thinking that if I was the person insisting on having a traditional look neither of these Avenger basses would make the grade. It's a good idea, but the execution is nowhere near right.

[Mike Brooks]

That's a fair point but I would refer you to Martin Sims who made it very clear back in 2008 that the Enfield Cannon was a bass that was not available to be modified in any way, it was what it was, take it or leave it. Obviously the feedback in the intervening years from players who rate the whole concept was that they wanted to make use of what is a great tool for getting so many sounds from. But the simple fact that 'names' are so fixated with the Fender look made it impossible for them to use anything such as a Cannon.

On top of that, the expense and design and research that has gone into the Enfield system I would imagine would prevent Martin from coming up with yet another pickup design although you would need to ask him about that. Coupled with that the number of Enfields being sold means this isn't a mass produced instrument, each one is basically a custom, unique instrument so I would undertsand that it's simply not cost-effective to look into another pickup design.

Personally, I'm okay with it, I've seen far worse monstrosities in the bass world over 25 years and for the flexibility the Enfield system offers, it's a small price to pay. But each to their own, what works for one player doesn't necessarily work for someone else, you pay your money and take your choice. I'm sure we can agree that it's good to see something different that's trying to solve a problem i.e. switching between split/single/humbucking coils. At least Martin took the plunge and had a go and came up with a workable system.

Mike

[joeystrange]

[quote name='Prime_BASS' timestamp='1336144369' post='1641630']I think the section on other bassists from not very well known bands is a pretty good section, gives coverage for quiet promising acts and opens up readers to new music.
[/quote]

You should pay particularly good attention to this month's!

I bought BGM for the first time this weekend and, I have to say, there was very little in it that interested me. Although, that said, I've never been all that interested in technical kinda stuff and I don't know if any similar magazines would be any different to this.

[ead]

I'm a subscriber and will continue to be one as for me there are are more pluses than minuses. Hoever like most commercial things the mag will stand or fall on it's sales and advertising revenue. If the circulation drops then advertisers will be less interested etc and the vicious circle begins.

If the readership want change they should write to the editor in a constructive way and eventually, if there is a body of opinion, I'm sure changes would be made.

I do think that there should be more reviews of basses people can actually afford and more "group tests". More fretless stuff too. I quite enjoy the few pages on bands that I've not hear of, the Barefaced column and the woodshop interviews. I'm actually less bothered about the bass establishment interviews as it seems to me not much new comes out each time.