Leaderboard

Donated a gig at a local-ish ale house in Skegness. Passed the hat around the punters a couple of times and, together with £100 from a secret Red Letter Day raffle, raised £510 in total which will go to the relief effort in Moldovan refugee camps. A nights work well done.

It won’t be a problem, I’m making the bass for Prince Andrew.

Just got back, with a new Bass in hand! So, I tried a fair few basses, and found the following ; G&L L2500 tribute. - Stunned by this, for the wrong reasons. QC was shocking, out of the box. Wobbly pickup selector switch, a set up that meant the B-string was almost resting on the polepieces, causing distortion and popping. The neck had a large, prominent white scuff under the lacquer, possibly from a poor sanding job. Even if it had been a good one, the string spacing was way too close for my tastes - I kept tripping over myself on quicker lines. Yamaha BB435/735 - both were nice playing and had a good tone (especially the rear pickups), but ultimately a bit uninspiring. Heavy as well. Sadowsky Metro-Express PJ5 - light, poorly set up, tone was quite flat sounding. Bass felt dead acoustically. Ibanez SR1405 - Light, superbly finished and set-up. Felt professional compared to the others and had a great, growly tone. Ultimately I didn't dig the finish that much. But that's a 'me' thing. Would have happily bought this in a sombre colour. Sterling SUB Ray 5 - Flat, lifeless tone. Had loose tuners and pots. Poor QC. Sterling Ray 35 - Great neck profile, tone was a bit thin for me on the upper strings, didn't really feel it was worth the asking price (£1100). Then went to Bass Direct. Musicman Bongo 5 - It was bloody loud. But, ultimately not for me. Suffered from neck dive. Nice neck profile, though. Sandberg TT5 - light, great tone, nicely finished, but was surpassed by something else. MTD KZ5. Yes. All the yes. B-String was much more defined and tighter than anything else I'd played (likely due to 35" scale), with much more articulation to each note. It weighed 8lbs 5oz, so, easy on the shoulder and back. The tone was deep and rich, with exemplary string balance. Beautifully finished and set-up, it was not even up for debate - this was the best bass I played all day by some margin (and exactly what I was looking for), so, I bought it!

I just realised as I was checking my gear before tonnight's gig that I've had this 7 months and not actually taken any proper pictures of it. I could've put it in about a dozen different threads but chose this one as the settee is brand new last week. It's a chambered alder with mahogany top Warmoth dinky jazz body finished in satin taos turquoise. Fender bridge, EMGs with 2 band EQ, 18v, Hipshot Ultralites with Xtender on the E and Status graphite jazz neck with no front markers. I had thought about going down the garish sparkly route as I have once or twice before but decided on something completely different this time

Don't expect anyone who has said they are "definitely" coming to watch your gig to actually do so. At least you may be pleasantly surprised

My go to bass-

Easily my Stingray Special refinished in faded fiesta red! Just a perfect sound for me in the vast majority of all situations.

For your interest I visited his new showroom today (not fully finished but is a relaxing atmosphere, sette to sit on with hot/cold drinks, appointment required so you get Will's full attention). I tried out some basses - really nice easy-going chap who is keen to help you find the right bass, and does not rush you. I recommend anyone visiting Warwickshire book an appointment (and there is another bass shop 5 minutes away ... BD???) Tim

Well, you gotta obey the rules.

I’m sorry but that’s nonsense. ”follow the law blindly” - as opposed to what? Ignore the law? That would be unlawful! And it’s the clients that bring the cases, not the lawyers. The lawyers do as they are instructed. In the UK a lawyers first duty is to the court, not their client. Other jurisdictions are different. Lawyers are not allowed to lie for their client. That’s why a criminal lawyer will never ask their client if they did it. They will ask how they want to plead. If the client says they did it and then says they want to still plead not guilty then The lawyer has to withdraw or not offer any evidence. Cannot lie for their client. And you are missing the subtleties too. Often lawyers represent people who know they are wrong. It’s those people who need representation the most! The lawyers job then isn’t to “get them off” it’s to make sure the punishment or penalty is correct and proportionate and within the law. It is not a binary job in the slightest. If a claimant lawyer goes to trial and relies on a precedent judgment that for whatever the dispute is awarded 50,000 then the defendant is entitled to show a precedent that only awarded 20,000 on similar facts. Cases are not just about winning or losing. Sometimes it’s about controlling the extent of the win / loss. Every one of these sorts of threads shows that misinformation and misunderstanding is rife and confirms the need for civics and basic law to be in the national curriculum. The old “ignorance of the law is no defence” has to apply for obvious reasons, but the state should also have to make an effort to educate too.

That's not pedantic, it's accurate. Every case ever bought for any type of dispute at all is pedantic and it has to be. Hindsight doesn't work. If the other guy had shown ES had heard the song before then it certainly would not have been a waste of time, and with the granting of the declaratory relief it wasn't a waste of time for ES in any circumstance, even if the counter claim hadn't been made. There was enough of a triable case to mean than ES had to put a hold on a couple of million quid pending the outcome. And we also need to remember each side had their own music experts - those experts have to sign a Statement of Truth confirming that their duty is to the court and not their own client, and their pay is not allowed to be linked to the outcome of the trial. Trials proceeding because opposing experts cannot agree is common in all types of litigation where experts might be needed. Medical, engineering, accountancy etc etc. There will now be another hearing about the costs. The usual outcome is that the loser pays the winners costs "on the standard basis" - that means any doubt as to the reasonableness of the costs is resolved in favour of the paying party - the LOSER of the main event gets the benefit of the doubt and the costs payable will be smaller. If the loser has done something particularly unwise or has failed to accept a sensible offer made by the winner then the court can punish them for wasting everybody's time for all or part of the costs by making an "Indemnity Costs" order where any doubt as to reasonableness of the costs is resolved in favour of the receiving party - the winner (ES) and then the loser will have to pay a higher percentage of the winner's costs. The costs order will decide whether the judge thought the matter was a waste of time as a whole or in part. And now for the bigger picture - all cases form part of precedent. So while the other guy didn't get what he wanted, and ES did get the Order he wanted there might be other benefits from this case being run. The judge's very careful and indeed pedantic review of the music led to a conclusion that the melody structure being argued about is very common and that there's nothing special about it. This decision will now be used as a basis to help decide whether other songs that are similar to each other in the same sort of way are just using a common melody structure or if there are genuinely unique elements that have been copied. It's not a binding decision as it's only in the High Court and not in the CA, but it will be powerfully persuasive. It is now likely that a potential claimant in an IP related case will not even start the matter if the type of similarity doesn't go beyond the ES example. On the flip side, any defendant will now find it easier to defend such an action bought by an unwise claimant. It also means that if someone writes a song that last year they would not have released because it's too close to ES's song for the relevant few bars, they can now release it knowing ES probably can't sue them for that common element. We all know how inadequate IP law is in the modern world and in the absence of parliament getting round to re-writing the law the way the law develops is through precedent. So no - this hasn't been a waste of time. It's helped develop the law on the issue. Just like the process does in other areas of law where parliament has no interest in updating statute.

Also, I'm reasonably sure Guy Pratt's been in Pink Floyd for longer than Roger Waters so that must count for something... (runs for cover)

Are you sure you didn’t get that at Ann Summers?

I’m a 2-band Stingray guy and this Classic is the best I’ve owned in my 37 year playing career…

It changes every now and then but, at the moment, it's El Presidente.

Having been without an ABM for the last year or two, I rejoined the ranks today with an ABM500 2x10 combo which I bought from a fellow bass chatter. My plan was to have a cheap combo that I could leave where we rehearse so I wouldn't have to take my gig gear (currently an Orange Little Bass Thing and Barefaced Super Compact) - but the Ashdown combo sounds so good I might reconsider that idea. I'm rehearsing with one of my bands in Oxford tomorrow and am very tempted to take the Ashdown along, but there are steps down to the rehearsal room, so will need help from a band mate.

Yeah it does the job nicely for me!

First full gig last night since lockdown. We had to cancel one in March due to a band member getting Covid. Went really well, we are already booked to return in September but landlord tried to fit us in for another but we didn't have any mutually acceptable dates unfortunately.

I think that you're all missing the point which is that Ed Sheerhan is terrible.

Again that’s not a problem. Admitting a killing is not the same as admitting murder or manslaughter. Could be self defence, pre-emptive strike, diminished responsibility, lots of things. Can even be an accident with no criminal liability. And even when a client admits a murder to his lawyer (not the court or police) he is allowed to refuse to enter a plea and make the prosecution prove their case. The lawyer is allowed to test the prosecutors evidence but not offer any evidence on behalf of his own client. In reality this hardly ever happens. But why can it be done? Be cause Innocent until proven guilty. It is the state’s job to prove to the jury that it happened. This assumption of innocence until proven otherwise is a vital part of a fair system. The state isn’t limited to the crap legal aid rates that the defendant has. The state can spend millions on a prosecution if they want. It’s such an uneven playing field that innocence must be the starting point. Again this is basic jurisprudence that should be learned at school. But even in the event of an actual murder guilty plea that person requires representation to ensure that the minimum imprisonment tariff is set correctly in line with the sentencing guidelines set by parliament. Theres an old saying that guilty people actually need lawyers more than the innocent ones because of the imbalance. If you want something to be angry about with good reason then try these 2. 1: If you are not eligible for legal aid so you have to pay your own lawyer and you are found Not Guilty then the state does not have to reimburse your costs even if clearing your name made you bankrupt and homeless. 2: If you are wrongfully convicted and later an appeal finds you not guilty then unless another person is found guilty of that offence the government position is that the question of guilt is not yet resolved so you get zero compensation for being locked up for 20 years. Then, if another person is convicted so you can get compensation (you’ll love this) your room and board expenses from being in prison are deducted from the compensation amount, because you would have needed to pay for them outside anyway. Be angry about stuff like that.

Such a clean and clutter free set up , really great 👍

I don't have a problem with Gilmour and Mason getting together under the name of Pink Floyd. Do have a problem with the media going overboard with their reaction, calling it as a shock reunion. If Waters was there, then yes worth the column inches.

All proceeds go to Ukrainian Humanitarian Relief, so if it makes more money that's a Good Thing (unless you happen to support Putin, of course, in which case you are an inhuman festering piece of loathsomeness).

How little time it took to go from new Pink Floyd song to whether bands should call themselves bands. I found the video profoundly moving, if you have no humanity in you then you probably won't.

Rocking my 4003S last night at Fiddler's Elbow, Camden

Violent pornograhy - System Of A Down

no win no fee means that many cases are not taken on in the first place due to the ending of legal aid in 99% of civil matters. And if a matter is taken on and then is either abandoned later or lost at trial then the lawyers have effectively funded the claimants action and then not actually been paid a penny. That’s not even covering the overhead. That’s a massive loss. No win no fee retainers were introduced by government because the govt wanted to remove legal aid from as many civil matters as possible. More people do know their rights now and that’s a very good thing. The amount of serious injury and fatal accidents at work has plummeted since no win no fee was introduced because employers actually discovered it was cheaper to properly protect their employees. The employers didn’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts! Nothing else ever improved that situation as much as that single change. Yes, the lawyers got paid just like every other profession. But the benefits were to every single employee in the country who had concerns about the safety at their place or work. Once again, the way to avoid paying lawyers is to not break the law in the first place. As another example the case of RvR in 1991. Before that case it was impossible for a husband to be accused of rape of his own wife. Before that date the marriage was deemed to be unconditional consent to sex. A man could hold his wife down every day and violate her and there wasn’t even anything the police could do. The thankfully aggressive lawyers ran it all the way to the House of Lords to get the interpretation of the law changed. Parliament updated statute later on. It needed the aggressive lawyers to get the law changed. That benefited every woman in the country. Similar approaches had equally wide benefits regarding asbestos exposure , smoking risks, clinical negligence and informed consent to surgical risks etc etc. Calling it aggressive as an insult is pointless. It’s always 2 or more opposing views that need a referee to sort it out. It’s never pleasant and it is always a last resort because the opposing parties cannot agree on something. But it’s the clients that decide on the approach and give the instructions to their lawyers and as long as those instructions are lawful the lawyer must follow them. The way litigation is conducted is set by parliament, and the way lawyers are paid is also set by parliament and various sub committees parliament sets up. The lawyers operate within those rules or they get struck off. A lawyer is only a spokesman for their client. They often do not share the same views as their client. There is a reason why the cab rank rule exists for barristers, to make sure everyone gets representation if they need it. A good recent example of this is Dinah Rose QC. She took instructions to defend the homophobic policies of the Cayman Islands in the Privy Council. She is not homophobic. The issue to be resolved was were the policies unlawful. Personal views do not come into it. Refusing the instructions was not an option. As for my job, my job is all about challenging lawyers fees and setting budgets for high value litigation. It’s my job to make sure litigation spending is proportionate so nobody spends a million quid to sue over a £10,000 dispute but also to make sure that the parties understand what needs to be spent to actually achieve a resolution to the dispute. The parties then get to make an informed choice and give their instructions to their lawyers. I’ve been doing this work for over 20 years and I am well aware of the problems in the system but the concerns you raise are not within them.

Ok. It's time to talk about what things cost. We've put our prices up to reflect the new UK manufacturing and have already had several angry emails from potential customers. So I want to address a few things. The cost of manufacturing in the East Even if we'd kept our manufacturing in India, our prices would probably have gone up 30%. This is due to the cost of wood going up. Shipping prices skyrocketing. Import Duties (we used to get our instruments tariff free on an EU trade deal. That's now gone). And just simply the factory in India raising their price. So although our new 60% price increase seems a massive jump. It's two jumps in one. One of which we were already absorbing. The sustainability of manufacturing in the East First - it's a bit wanky - but it's not too environmentally friendly shipping guitars all over the world by ship. Ships are massive polluters. It's not a great idea. But even that aside - all the manufacturing capacity at the Indian / Indonesian / Korean manufacturers is being bought up by the big boys. Smaller manufacturers like us were being pushed to the back of the queue ALL the time. They're just not interested in manufacturing for us. A move to the UK We know that if the ONLY thing we're offering for the increased price is that it's made here - then people are going to see that for what it is. So we are taking advantage of the fact that we can now work more closely and flexibly with a UK factory to squeeze in some improvements. Chambering / Weight Relief, Boutique Woods, Better Finish, Carbon reinforcement in all necks, Blind Fretting, Rolled Edges on Fretboards, Better parts. ALL of these are included in our price increases. So you're getting a lot for our money. Come along on the journey with us. We KNOW we are going to lose sales. Spending £850 on a bass is a lot more than £530 on a bass. We are not worried however about where we sit in the market. It's a totally fair price for what you're getting. Our confidence in the market on the whole is a bigger concern. Higher bills, national insurance and inflation makes us worry that people might not have the money to buy a bass. But it is what it is. Come on a journey with us while we build a proper UK build bass brand. It's going to be fun! Thanks for letting me ramble.

this maybe getting our of hand!!

Ask and ye shall receive!

Can’t beat a bit of Horace and from what I’ve heard this is great work, enjoy your bbq 👍

So I'm sitting there thinking, "this is the weirdest cover of Tore Down that I've ever heard ...".

I didn't, although I like to think I have some humanity and not convinced we can establish others humanity based on a music video. I do however fully support the idea behind it and hope it does well.

@fretmeister Thank you for your contributions to this thread. I'm not interested enough in the outcome of the case to care much either way, but it is refreshing to hear from somebody who knows how it actually works.

None of the Subway amps require a load to operate safely.

This is a little old so may have been posted at some point. Very funny and quite accurate though!