mcgraham

Depending on where you get it from it can be up to 200 quid cheaper! I did do my research, and as dedicated bass synth's go, there is none better out there (IMO).

I use and highly rate the Fender Champ 600 reissue. Secondhand about 70-80 quid. Speaker is only 6" but the tone does [u][i]not[/i][/u] suffer, mic'd up you'd never know the difference. I've done entire gigs with this amp, telecaster, and a delay pedal, everything from rock to ambience playing. HOWEVER! if you don't like the Fender sound you're a bit stuck! There is also Blackstar HT1R and the like, but they lack the simple 1 knob charm of the Champ.

[quote name='GarethFlatlands' timestamp='1355669461' post='1901116'] Thanks, I think I'd go for the Slim Phatty if I were looking at a synth module for the extra flexibility but this sounds huge and looks a lot easier to use. [/quote] I thought the same, but then decided that: a) one knob per function makes for a better instrument (after my experience playing out lots with the Microkorg XL) more idiosyncrasies would make for a better instrument (the best instruments require you to get to know them) I'd still love one, but the Minitaur is more intuitive and instantly accessible, but at the same time requires more effort to get to know. It's about your ability to play it, rather than program it.

Stunning, just stunning. You just need a W&T fretless to match - tho I should warn you, their fretless basses make even their fretted basses pale in comparison!

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Though I'll be honest and say I could barely comprehend from your post what had actually transpired. Singers' attitudes can often be quite prima donna-esque. Good singers need the ability to be emotive on tap, but often they just end up being emotional and self-absorbed. If it makes you feel any better I try to level out the attitudes of any such students I get through my doors.

Stumbled across this as a great example of tasteful use of electronically generated harmonies, subtle but does enough to reeeally lift the piece. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMIIuh5Zshk

[quote name='andyjingram' timestamp='1355504619' post='1899421'] I wasn't considering it an argument- hope it didn't come across that way! I'm not doing a very good job of saying what I mean, but I guess my core point is that any act which has mass, sycnhronous exposure has achieved that by aquring the services of PR professionals to arrange the whole thing. A situation in which every form of media is pushing an artist all at the same time as 'the next big thing' (or the next record from your favourite band) doesn't happen by chance. Certainly, related to the question of why Mssr. Bugg has all this fuss about him, it is that PR 'big push' that we are seeing. Of course, if an act really is terrible, then people won't buy it. And if they're great, then all the better that they were given the chance to reach so many people. Online conversations can get very conlvoluted sometimes. I'm sure if we were having this discussion over a beer it would have flowed much better! [/quote] Ahh. No worries, I'm sure I wasn't being especially clear at times either. My apologies either way! I think in a real-life conversation we'd have got through multiple topics of conversation and put the world to rights over a couple of pints by now

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355494328' post='1899201'] But Cheryl Cole still can't sing, no matter how many takes she does. [/quote] *facepalm* Multiple albums would suggest otherwise, unless you have some different definition to singing I don't know about. [quote name='andyjingram' timestamp='1355494357' post='1899204'] Very intersesting video, I'm off out now but I will try to rememebr to come back to that. There are indeed some terrible artist who get the big push. The product still has to be good, or perhaps I should say 'have some discernable merit'. The Gun 'n' Roses thing would suggest that anyone who bought the first record the first time round only did so due to seeing the band at a gig or or from their own flyers or such. I'm sure they did work extremly hard, as I assume the namesake of this post has, and many artist who are successful, but much of that early work is part of the lead up to gaining the chance for widespread exposure. People can't possibly like what they don't know about, and no band can possibly play to the entire world just by being on the road all the time. G'n'R no doubt worked their arses off, and cetainly had the product to back it up, but until they were 'in the media' the casual record buying public would not have been aware of them, or at least not percieved them as a big band. [/quote] I don't really understand what your point is now. Are you saying 'promo is a big help, but the act has to be of discernible merit for people to want it?' if so, that's what I've been saying since my first comment, so I don't know what we are arguing about?

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355493167' post='1899168'] Yup, i understand that. But is anyone disputing that Cheryl Cole can sing? Because i really doubt that she can, but yet, she is a recording artist. I think her act lies more in dancing and just being a good looking girl (as harsh as that sounds) than being a performing musician or singer. Maybe she should look at other careers that would use those attributes and skills without forcing her to mime all the time? [/quote] Does it matter? The finished product sells. What about authors that can write a great book in a month versus those that can write an equally great book but takes them 2 years? One has to get through a lot more first drafts and retakes of sections than the other, one might be a more skilled writer, but at the end of the day it's the finished product we're interested in, not the innate skill of the person who wrote it.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355492876' post='1899162'] Of course, of course, who wouldn't? but even still, when you have your iPod or whatever, what really matters? the image? but you can't see them. The music is what really matters if you are an artist. [/quote] Yes and no. Yes in that you can't see them, No in that I do have an image in my head. If their actual image doesn't match up, I find it jarring. I like think I'm a discerning listener, but even I then stop listening to someone in the same way if I am jarred in that way - I don't stop completely, it just changes what I want to do with it. It's human nature! But for less discerning listeners, or even just different listeners, such a jarring experience may put them off listening to that music, because their even unconscious expectations were not met. [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1355493077' post='1899165'] This is MASS marketable, if you subscribe to the notion that the average popular music consumer is a lazy, generally ignorant sheep-like fleshy substance with little ability to do much more than dance, and worship and copy their idols' make-up, hair and sartorial elegance, then no wonder we have our current short-termist profiteering music industry, and no different than KFC, McDonald's, Asda, etc. They make money out of clever marketing and the 'public's' inability to process or be interested in anything they are not familiar with. Try getting your average KFC muncher to try some sustainably sourced sashimi 'I ain't eetin raw fackin fish yer c**t!'. And yet there remains a decent western market for sushi, albeit not real sushi in most cases. Same with music. [/quote] While overly cynical (IMO), this is more like it. Companies know what people want, they track it, monitor it, and know how to tweak products individual artists bring to them to increase sales accordingly to what will sell. Basically psychology and business 101 - know your market!

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355492521' post='1899152'] I do think it's just about the music. Image is import, of course, we live in a society obsessed with it, it's hard to get away from it, but the music always has to come first. [/quote] You're entitled to your opinion, but I think even you would enjoy one musical act more than another if one was a better looking and better performing artist, provided the music of each act was of a sufficient standard - not even saying equal, just that neither could be called bad.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1355492192' post='1899144'] But the musicians who think think it's just about the music and nothing else are the ones who are playing to just a handful of their friends on one of those multi-band bills, and will never amount to anything more, unless someone outside the band takes an interest in them and they are prepared to listen to and act on what that person has to say. [/quote] Admittedly it's on my blog, but here are some highlights from a seminar I went to by a very experienced vocal coach and performance coach from Canada. 5 very simple tips I picked up that can massively change your performance from merely music to something that people want to attend. It takes time, and takes practice, but it plays on the fact that over 50% of your performance to an audience is visual - i.e. they take in far more visually than they actually hear sonically, so you need to practice that. [url="http://www.markjwgraham.co.uk/500-words-or-less-5-simple-tips-to-bolster-your-performances"]500 words or less: 5 Simple Tips to Bolster Your Performances[/url]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1355491549' post='1899120'] It's all about the package, the PR and marketing, if he was called Andrew Jones, do you think he'd have been a successful? the name Jake Bugg paints a big picture of something a bit more American and exotic than Andrew Jones, which is a bit more outskirts of Milton Keynes. His music's American sounding, he looks cool, he plays and sings well and his songs are ok, he is MARKETABLE to the masses and everybody wins. [/quote] Bingo-frikkin-lingo! [quote name='andyjingram' timestamp='1355491534' post='1899118'] Reading through, I think we are saying pretty much the same thing as far as the business is concerned. I think I was responding more to the comment about the public not being stupid (and sub-conciously trying to make sure I hadn't been percieved as suggesting such!). I was agreeing that each and every one of us makes our decision for ourselves, but of course many people only know the music which is provided for them through the usual channels. [i][b]Someone who can afford big time promo will always do better than someone whose public presence is limited to Myspace/Facebook.[/b][/i] Unless I really, really misunderstood! [/quote] Glad we agree on most parts - I think you're getting a little hung up on the promo aspect. Yes, it makes life a LOT easier, but 'always do better'? Most of the time yes, but not always. Didn't that now-plasticised Hills star Heidi Montag release an album? Huge amounts of money for promo, name already known, pretty... no success... I'm sure we can name other artists that are the same. Guns 'n' Roses? No serious management, no money to speak of to start, AFD album was in the charts for near a year before it got to #1 - it was their hard graft that got them there with crazy hardcore touring, relentless pursuit of fans and unyielding fanbase management. They had to work exceedingly hard, but it was graft and not money that got them where they are now.

As it's related, and I found it really eye opening, here's a great seminar by a guy called Ralph Murphy. VP of ASCAP http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wBOUJ5Mbrk&feature=player_embedded

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355490223' post='1899085'] I don't see what my personally interest in entertainment and culture has to do with a discussion on jake bugg. Also in my list of interests is making people smile, cooking, music and cars, for anybody that hasn't glanced across there. Anybody want to make another hit at my personal interests? [/quote] [quote name='Toasted' timestamp='1355490055' post='1899083'] Yes you were - you said he didn't do anything new or fresh and because he was popular that was unfair. That conflicts with the idea that RHCP should escape the same criticism. EDIT: you're the gift that keeps on giving, interests: "Derren Brown" [/quote] Both of you, take it easy.

[quote name='andyjingram' timestamp='1355487991' post='1899020'] Well, coercion implies force or threats, so no. But there is a very heavy influence being laid in place which 'the public' (which doesn't really exist as an entity) has shown itself to be very responsive to. Simon Cowell doesn't even pretend that his career isn't built on that fact. Of course, 'the public' is a term for a collection of individuals each of whom have their own tastes and decision making apparatus, and it would be an insult to say that everyone who buys a heavily marketted product is just responding to direct instruction due to stupidity. I'm assuming Jake Bugg is very good at what he does, and his record will make a very satisfying purchase for a lot of people. But the fact remains that an 18 year old with whatever backing Jake Bugg has will gain considerably more fans (and threads about him on forums) than an equally talented 18 year old without any 'connections' or benefactors. [/quote] I agree with most of your points, am not certain on others, but the nature of your points seem to indicate (IMO) you're not quite hearing what I'm saying. I don't dispute that better connections will help gain more fans, more funding can help gain better visibility, but the bottom line (in any industry) is to sell, which means you need to make your product as attractive enough to sell to your target market, and you need to make the target market/right people aware of your product. Having something to sell isn't enough, having someone to buy isn't enough, you need the person to buy to be aware of your product. This might make it slower going for some without big financial backing to get visibility, or those without the know-how/awareness to tailor what they're doing to their target market, that's the nature of any business.

[quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1355484380' post='1898942'] I always liked folk music, and having a decent band like Mumford & Sons having albums well produced means a lot to me. Maybe you're right (you're probably right) but i still don't like it. Why not just push Dylan's albums more? It has the same effect. [/quote] Other than just marketing reasons and the fact he'll sell better on image alone, there are bound to be Dylan listeners out there who want more of 'Dylan' and his music but reinvigorated by younger performers. That alone means that Jake Bugg is meeting an existing artistic demand. You can say you don't want that, but it doesn't change the fact someone else wants it, and if they are willing to listen to it and/or pay for it, it will take care of itself.

I don't think the public are stupid. The public knows what they want. Sure, it might have been brought to their attention by advertising, it might have been slickly marketed, it may well have a lot of money behind it, but people (by and large) fundamentally will not buy something they don't want. Those like us in this thread are a prime example of that. We've seen the ads, we went and listened, we then made a decision based on our opinion, either we then either bought or we didn't. Simple as. A lot of the public are less picky than us, but a lot of them are more picky than us. At the end of the day people make up their own minds, no-one is coercing anyone else to buy his album.

There was a thread elsewhere about vinyl vs CD. Ultimately even if they sound the same, or even if the vinyl sounds worse, if you enjoy the entire [i]experience[/i] of vinyl MORE, you can't divorce the enjoyment factor of the other non-musical aspects of the whole experience. In the same way, if someone looks better and performs better (visually, onstage antics, etc) than other performers/musicians, even if the music of the weaker performer is better, you can't divorce those factors from each other... it's the whole package that matters, and its very much a marketed product. Again, no accounting for taste.

I gave up trying to understand people in this regard the day I worked out that the music industry is just like any other, it's about selling a product that people want to buy. Just cos I don't want to listen to it (and I don't want to listen to Jake Bugg - doesn't grab me in the slightest) doesn't mean that there aren't others in the world that want to buy it, and to buy enough copies of it to make it worth selling and marketing hard, like any good product. I'm just pleased there's choice

It is tough to find committed reliable musicians generally, but the mentality of those who often fancy themselves as singers (whether they can sing or not) tends to be less reliable than other instrumentalists. I see that in students as well. I may know some teachers up your way with students game for that sort of thing - what sort of age bracket and material are you doing?

[quote name='PaulWarning' timestamp='1355046453' post='1893209'] Does vinyl appear to sound better because of the physical attachment to it i.e. taking this disc out of a nice big sleeve, putting it on a turnrable and dropping the arm on it and being able to watch it go round, therefore enhansing the listening pleasure, or does it actually sound better even though initially CD's do sound clearer, I don't know, but I do know I seem to enjoy vinyl more [/quote] It's hard to tell, but why divorce those elements from the whole experience of sitting down to listen to music? (not saying you were, it's at least rhetorical). You could liken it to great musicians who are technically excellent but who are mediocre to watch, versus those musicians who are mediocre in terms of technical ability but excellent performers - ultimately we're there for the whole experience so why try to pretend one element is irrelevant? Why try to pretend that you enjoy listening to CDs as much as vinyl if you don't? (again, rhetorical) If you enjoy the overall experience more as a result, great!

Flea - Higher Ground intro alone made me decide I wanted to learn the bass. The subtle irony is that now I only play fretless and rarely slap.

Kiwi is pretty spot on there. The typical 'gospel' sound is a bit like that smiley face EQ shape, with loads of warm bass frequencies, loads of super-high top end, and this results in relatively little mid frequency content. This often disappears in the mix. You need to dial in a little more mid and set the high frequency boost a little lower than you might think, just to ensure the bass has enough 'bite' to cut through the mix. That said, a great amp for the gospel sound is EBS - they have a very similar signature sound. Marcus Miller used these for a while, and they deliver the extended frequency range with top-end zing and bottom end warmth (plus punch) with relative ease.

LOVE the name. LOVE the artwork. I really like the production on the album, the arrangements, the guitar sound, interesting progressions, the tasteful use of BVs. I like the fact your lead singer kept his accent for the songs. I also like his voice. I'm getting a big Paolo Nutini vibe from your Rocket Science EP. The weakest part by far, IMO, are the vocal melodies. It's not they are bad, it's that they don't go anywhere throughout the songs. They seriously lack lift come the choruses. It's dynamically flat and more-or-less on the same level throughout each section. IMO you've got a great sound. If you can do something to the vocal lines so that they go somewhere, and have some variation, I think there would be some serious marketability in your band.