toneknob

Survey done. Video watched. There's a nice bit of squeezebox in there.

Here's the Guardian's review of the second night at the Scala http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/may/08/snarky-puppy-scala-london-review

Handy KP3 vs Kaossilator Pro comparison: http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2010/03/10/kaossilator-pro-vs-kaoss-pad-3-comparison/

Can someone explain in easy bassist-friendly words what a Kaossilator is? (and/or lets see the youtube clips you mention)

[quote name='PTB' timestamp='1399567599' post='2445462'] It was a really great gig last night but we were stuck at the back behind a gathering of giants ... Sounds like we were behind you. Must get there earlier next time. [/quote] I'm only 5'10" ! Although for the second night I had deliberately worn my high heels (a pair of thick-soled steel-toed Blundstones vs the previous night's relatively skimpy Converse boots), so I had an extra few cm in height. Know what you mean though - it's a low stage, and once the front row of the floor and balconies are full it's tough to get a good sightline. On Tuesday night I was in a good spot on the floor, then the drum/perc duet happened and I was low on beer so went to the bar. The venue had filled up a LOT after I'd got to my spot, and I found myself behind the sound desk occasionally seeing ML's head. Still, nice cold beer though. At £4.90 a tin.

Gary Willis lives there now. Drop him a line and ask for a lesson.

[quote name='PTB' timestamp='1399530764' post='2444993'] It was a really great gig last night but we were stuck at the back behind a gathering of giants. I could see a few heads & shoulders onstage but Mrs PTB & my daughter couldn't see a thing despite shuffling around the venue. Still, musically it was superb. [/quote] We got there early (7.45 ish) and already the best spot to be found was the third level balcony (same height as the mix desk). We couldn't see the whites of their eyes but had a full view of the stage. Great show, marginally better than Tuesday's as well.

That Paul Turner just ambled past on his way into the Scala

A few tickets have been released for tonight's Scala gig: http://www.ticketweb.co.uk/event/KWI0605

Big fan of Caravan here - but more of the line-ups that included Richard Sinclair on bass and vocals. "Waterloo Lily" and "In The Land Of Grey And Pink" are classics for prog fans everywhere. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl70UahZ3a4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ZrJdmnHIw How do you rate the new album?

[quote name='Left Foot' timestamp='1397059128' post='2420258'] all to confusing, so I count in bums and tits [/quote] *insert inappropriate clip from Total Recall here*

Haha. Of course.

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1397054369' post='2420184'] I just searched on 'Dream Theatre "Mike Portney"' and found 10,700 results. Doesn't that mean that it must be a correct spelling of his name since there are many examples of it being spelled that way? [/quote] er, no actually (and it's "Theater" )

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1397053938' post='2420177'] E.g. it's very common for people to write "your" when they should write "you're", but this doesn't make it correct. ...(After all, it was me that posted the Portney youtube video.) [/quote] It's "Portnoy" actually

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1397048427' post='2420094'] As someone else said in one of the related threads (and possibly here as well) these "rules" are more like widely-followed guidelines than scientific laws. Depending on whose transcript you pick up, for example, I've seen Pink Floyd's [i]Money [/i]written out in both 7/4 and in 4+3 / 4. (Somebody told me this was because conventionally, 7/4 is emphasised as 3+4 / 4. I don't know whether I believe this person, particularly because I didn't think there was enough music written in 7/4 for there to be a broad "convention" on the matter!) [/quote] There's no more a convention for 7/4 to be treated as a 3+4 or a 4+3 than 4/4 has a convention to be 2+2 or 1+3 or 3+1. It's 7/4 because there are seven quarter-note beats that repeat. Same goes for 9/8, 13/4 etc.

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396967259' post='2419219'] Your bracketed guess is correct! Unfortunately I don't have a prize to offer you. [/quote] Cool! (They're both the same thing btw). My prize shall be an elevated sense of satisfaction and pride for the rest of the day, as I walk down the street in 17/16

[quote name='EliasMooseblaster' timestamp='1396963593' post='2419151'] Both wrong, I'm afraid. Though there are some spurious 4/4s chucked in at key points. Try again! [/quote] The verses sound like alternating 7/4 and 15/16 (or 7/8 7/8 7/8 4/4 if you like)

[quote name='Annoying Twit' timestamp='1396958394' post='2419071'] I would personally find that confusing. I like to have only the beats having numbers. On the wikipedia page for counting there are a number of counting techniques given, some of which use numbers only for beats, and other sounds for divisions. Searching online reveals even more counting systems. Aztec drum syllables, anyone? Edit: Or, have I misinterpreted your post? Do you mean that no-one counts using numbers for both beats and divisions? Or that nobody counts time signatures that require division of an eight quaver bar into unequal beats? If the latter (which I now think is the case), then I'd agree that it's very rare, because very little music is written in that way, and that there is the alternative to interpret such music as being 4/4, but with a high degree of syncopation. As for the rarity of music of that type, how many examples have we seen in this thread other than Ravel's Trio? But, additive time signatures, counted as I've described, are being used by some people. E.g.: [url="https://keenot.es/read/additive-time-signatures"]https://keenot.es/re...time-signatures[/url] However, just because there are web pages using the terminology like that doesn't mean that it's correct. [/quote] What I mean is - no one counts 9/8 as four "one two"'s with an extra "one" or a "one two three" at the end.

No one counts "one two one two one two one two three" though do they?

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1396943486' post='2418883'] In 20 years of reading music I've [i]never [/i]come across 8/8. Its much more common for music to be written down using changing time signatures than it is using these "odd" ones. Your first example would be much clearer written as a bar of 6 and a bar of 2, for example. In my opinion the only time signatures theory beginners need consider are 4/4, 3/4, 2/4, 2/2, 5/4, 7/4. 6/8, 9/8, 12/8 and thankfully those are all easy to understand. These really weird things like 8/8 are little more than theoretical constructs that you'll only come across once in a lifetime unless you're into some pretty niche stuff. [/quote] I agree, never seen an 8/8 - and even the 3/3/2 example would be written in 4/4 as feel of two dotted quarters plus one normal quarter, and eighth note subdivisions of same. Back to 13: the aforementioned Robbery Assault and Battery instrumental in 13/8 can initially be felt as an alternating 7 and 6, but later the feel changes to alternating 4 and 9. Would those in favour of subdividing complex time sigs notate this as bars of alternating 6/8 and 7/8, then switch to 2/4 and 9/8, or just keep it as a 13/8 all the way through? My suspicion is that common sense might suggest the latter.

I grew up in Genesis tribute bands, so odd time sigs were par for the course. In all that time though, and before/during/since learning material from Rush, Yes and now harder (some might say) jazz-fusion stuff, I've never come across "8/8" that wasn't notated as 4/4. My favourites: the 13/8 instrumental of Genesis' Robbery Assault and Battery, the 9/8 of In That Quiet Earth, 7/8 in The Cinema Show, every odd time sig going in the Firth Of Fifth instrumental; 11/8 in Gates Of Delirium and Awaken, 13/8 in King Crimson's Starless

[quote name='pulsefilms' timestamp='1396268004' post='2411518'] on Sat 13th of April [/quote] Saturday 12th? Or Sunday 13th? Or Saturday April 13th 2019? if the latter, sorry I'm booked

[quote name='JapanAxe' timestamp='1396044622' post='2409505'] [nostalgia]If you are lucky enough to buy a ticket in your own right, you will get stung with a 'booking fee'. Sorry, what is that? A fee for the privilege of buying a ticket! Rarely can you simply buy the ticket at face value from the venue. Imagine getting to the till in Asda with your shopping, and they add on a £5 'shopping fee'. [/quote] Your shopping fee is wrapped up in the cost of food. Booking fee pays for the infrastructure of the website, databases, staff etc. I'd much rather pick my own seat through the booking website than posting off a cheque and crossing my fingers that in six months you'll get a grubby brown envelope with some badly-printed tickets for seats in the nosebleeds. Ticketmaster (etc) are up front these days about the cost of the ticket, the fees, the postage. What annoys me is being charged the same amount for postage or the print at home option. Huh?

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1395924140' post='2407949'] More to the point, how are you all getting tickets for KB before the official release date?! [/quote] There was a fan club/mailing list only presale on Wednesday morning. Only those who'd signed up to the list before March 1st got the presale code. Even so, the 15 nights sold out, and 7 more have been added

I got lucky with a pal who piped up "oh I've got a code shall we go?" sometime on Tuesday. We got tickets for the date we wanted (it was too hectic to browse for best seats) in the stalls, central but a bit further back than I'd have liked, but as you say the experience will be worth it.