Dad3353

A couple a decades ago now, I listened to part of a radio programme celebrating the xxx years of their career. A few anecdotes, some chat with the presenter, and, as a 'parting gift', they were to receive a special treat: the playing of their first hit. 'Pictures Of Matchstick Men'. One could hear, even on the radio, the cringing of the group as they had to endue the full three minutes thirty or whatever. After having lauded their guitar work, their tight signature rhythm section, their musicality... It was a real embarrassment. Disclaimer: I've never been, myself, a fan of their stuff, having lived not far from the 'Rossi' roots of Hounslow, and having had the dubious pleasure of playing some of their stuff (on drums...) for a college concert. It's basic, it's primitive, it works, in the genre targeted, but I wouldn't give it house room, myself. There is, in my world, much better stuff to listen to. As for 'worship': that's meant jokingly, surely..? Just my tuppence-worth.

OK, but go easy on the yodelling.

... and..? ...

A light repertoire, then..? ...

Because a Brownie Box camera can only do so much ...

Here's one we prepared earlier ...

Yes, I was only using the Classics as an example; there is a powerful catalogue of more contemporary music than that of Bach, up to and including modern day composers, in all genres. Maybe the term 'good' is subjective (and therefore pretty meaningless in these contexts...); could I suggest something with a bit more consistence, such as 'sincere', or 'deep', in opposition to stuff simply churned out for populist reasons..? These, and other, terms would also be subjective, I'm aware, but how, then would you, yourself, distinguish music as 'audible wallpaper' to that with a more profound impact (if, indeed, you would...)..? I see a difference in trashy magazine articles and journalism, holiday beach 'eau-de-rose' novels and literature, 'dog-turd' sculpture and fine statues. I personally don't hold with the 'everything can be art' school (yes, I'm old...), and music, in its broadest sense, is, to me, distinguishable between absolute dross and pure magic. There is an infinite range between, but, in the end, dross is dross; a silk purse is far more likely to come from a silk purse maker than a butcher with a bucket full of pig's ears. I certainly don't give much weight to the 'newness' or originality' in and of itself. New rubbish is rubbish just the same (as is and was old rubbish, and there's a heck of a lot of that, too. Offenbach, anyone..?)

Self-defeating, I'd say, if the premise is that 'music has to change'. Music created with that in mind is, by its own yardstick, doomed to a short lifespan, to be replaced by its commercially-driven 'spin of the day'. It's done quite deliberately, and even cynically, with the firm intention of renewing the revenue on a daily basis. Good Music does not have, nor need, this driver. OK, it will always be, by this same token, less mainstream, and with a lower visibility, but, to me, 'Good' can be less subjective than is being implied. The term itself 'Pop' (ie: popular...) gives it, almost automatically, its ephemeral nature, in the commercial culture it's spawned in. Its 'absolute' merit lies solely there, I suggest.

It's done OK by Schubert and his chums so far. 'Evolve' isn't always 'Good'. We'll see how much Spice Girls stuff is being played in a couple of centuries or so. Schubert and his chums probably will be.

As long as you veto any and all suggestions that don't meet your criteria, that's exactly what will happen, until one or other of the band members decides they'd rather not be in the project. It's very simple, I'd say, and doesn't need overthinking.

I'd make a set-list of songs that everyone agrees to playing; a unanimous choice. No need to justify one's vote, just have all on board when choosing songs. Simple enough, I'd say.

Why aren't you bowing like everyone else..? ...

How would that work..?

I can't see it, myself. A poor video, too, but a chef-d'oeuvre wouldn't have saved it, anyway. Slightly less than banal, to me.

+1 ^^

The technical term for that ^^ is 'Doing It Right', and you should continue. Some folks (yes, I know; I find it odd, too...) seem to find a difference between one bass/amp/cab and another, and even (shudder...) have 'preferences'. This implies a remarkable (in the sense of 'able to be remarked'...) difference between rigs. Some folk (even odder...) want to have, not just the sound you get from your 'Doing It Right' method, but sounds of different rigs (as if that even was a Thing..! ). This implies having one rig, and being dissatisfied as it only has the one sound, or having several rigs, which tends to become cumbersome on a crowded stage. The answer..? Yes; you've guessed it..! Modelling, and using an FRFR cab..! With this System, the Player can switch sound with alacrity, which, in their delirium, gives the psychological impression of having different sounds (Yes, yes; we know it's not 'real', but you just can't tell 'em...). No, don't you worry your little head with all of this; just carry on 'Doing It Right', and use the money saved to buy a second yacht. Sharing or not, this is the Default result of going on after the (hugely over-running...) Reggae band.

Twerp..!

Oh, I thought you were being devious; apparently not. 'FRFR' stands for 'Full Range, Flat Response', indicating a very 'HiFi' type of design and phonic result. The idea is to have no colouration in the sound. Used for PA rigs, and is useful when using modelling amps, as they can produce (By... Erm... Modelling...) the sounds of different rigs. The 'FRFR' will reproduce this modelled sound with fidelity. Hope this helps.

Get a kit for another effect and pop it into the case..? If you're not into Building, offer it up in the 'Recycling' section..?