Jakester

2 hours ago, TimR said:

We have a justice system that decides guilt and a proportionate punishment to avoid this kind of lynch mob and vigilantism, even if it is virtual.

 

The idea is that the people who are in full possession of the facts, and hear the evidence first hand make the decisions, not a bunch of people who read second hand badly reported events, often sensationalised to sell whatever media they're published on. 

 

Then the offender does the punishment and is rehabilitated back into society when appropriate. 

 

Otherwise you will get more of this cancel culture and the world will spiral into a big mess where anyone can potentially lose their reputation, job, house and family, just becasue someone starts a rumour or wants to further their own agenda. 

 

I strongly object to this reductive characterisation of what is clearly a fairly nuanced discussion to the level of ‘cancel culture’ and ‘a lynch mob’. 
 

This is not someone taking imagined offence and requiring everyone else to agree with them; this is a specific practical issue concerning one artist. It’s clear from the replies that there are a range of well-considered views, as there should be with any artistic discourse. 
 

Society changes, art changes with it. What might have been appropriate *artistically* 50 years ago may not be now (Brown Sugar being a good example). 
 

Discourse about these issues is the very opposite of so-called ‘cancel culture’ in my view. 

Well, the decision has been taken to put it to the members on a vote. We don’t generally do that - it’s more a benign dictatorship (and the dictator ain’t me!) so I’ll be interesting to see what the outcome is.
 

Probably 48%/52% knowing our luck!

19 hours ago, Doctor J said:

You could just write your own music?

Well, the specific question was about arranging tunes for an orchestra - which aren't usually best-known for playing originals...😉

12 minutes ago, chris_b said:

Maybe all music should come with a DBS check.

 

Then we'll know it's safe to play.

Well, that's rather the sort of hyperbolic nonsense I was hoping to avoid . This is a practical issue for us - there have been lots of views aired within the orchestra, but I thought it might be helpful to seek the views of a wider group outside our 'bubble'.

On the whole there's been some very sensible and useful comments made, so thanks to all who offered contributions - I will certainly be taking some of the viewpoints on board to inform our discussions. 

3 hours ago, Cato said:

The simple probability is that if you play Michael Jackson songs in public there's a good chance that someone will either raise an objection or at least raise the question of whether it's 'appropriate'.

Yep - one of things to consider is we sometimes do joint gigs with younger age-group ensembles as well, so that possibility might be more than remote for us. 

3 hours ago, chris_b said:

You can't select a song based on how angelic it's writer was.

True, but conversely we don't *have* to popularise the work of (for example) an absolute shite either when there's other stuff out there. 

2 hours ago, SumOne said:

Chris Rock's latest standup:

 

"The thing I have a problem with is selective outrage.

Yep, although I suppose we're trying to pre-empt the outrage, rather than being outraged ourselves!

2 hours ago, fretmeister said:

Is beautiful art still beautiful if the artist is scum? I think it is. We usually discover the art before the detail of the artist's life so that first impression of beauty is very difficult to shake.

Well put - this is the view I would tend to incline towards personally. 

2 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

Enid Blyton: still a Good Read for children, even if there are Golliwogs in the stories..?

Enid Blyton was a horrible, horrible racist. Her books have been 'sanitised' decades ago, well before the current furore over Dahl.

2 hours ago, Dad3353 said:

What's so special about public figures at all..? Are anonymous folk except from this moral gaze..? Why..? It all seems very odd to me, with dotted lines drawn in thick fog surrounding a moral maze. I think that there are more important issues that are worthy of action, but... Who am I to sort out what is and what isn't..?

Well, that's sort of a wider question - this is to some extent a practical one for us, rather than an abstract philosophical one!

2 hours ago, Franticsmurf said:

For me there's a clear difference between liking or performing the music and supporting or promoting the views or lifestyles of those who created it. I would have no problem playing these songs if the set/band/client requested them. I accept that there may be a few who cannot make the distinction between the music and the person. But I believe that attitude is unreasonable unless the music itself condones, supports or promotes immoral behaviour or is so associated with it as to be impossible to separate from the behaviour itself.

 

'Tears in Heaven' is a great song. If we accept that it is tainted by association with Clapton, we must also accept that it is associated with loss, sadness and grieving and has meaning for a lot of people who have found some comfort through that song. Which side do we take?

I like this view, but then someone pointed to the Rock With You lyrics (not written by MJ) which start:

"Girl, close your eyes
Let that rhythm get into you
Don't try to fight it
There ain't nothing that you can do
Relax your mind
Lay back and groove with mine"

To what extent do you then do a 'sense check' of lyrics to check they might not be objectionable? Or again, is that possibly over-sensitive? (I think so). 

1 hour ago, Oomo said:

c) does the thing they've created exist independently of them?
 

If someone awful made a lovely chair, then to be it's still a functional chair, it doesn't stop being something that stops me falling on the floor, and I wouldn't destroy it. They don't benefit from me sitting on it or not. Of course I'd stop buying anything new from them, and discourage others from buying their products.

This is a good viewpoint for me. 

1 hour ago, jonnybass said:

MJ inparticular…is it all his material? Or are Jackson 5 numbers ok? A band I played in honestly had this discussion. 

This was specifically in the context of discussion of new arrangements, and whether or not we should go ahead and do an arrangement of MJ music. Not sure which track ATM. We have already performed a Jackson 5 track in the past, after the Netflix doc came out with no objections. 

27 minutes ago, Mykesbass said:

Difficult one isn't it?

Yep! 🤣

49 minutes ago, TheGreek said:

You can't always be the world's conscience. Where do you stand on Bob Marley? Serial drug abuser. Gregory Isaacs - another serial drug abuser who openly funded the Gun Trade. Bill Wyman - his involvement with an under age Mandy Smith was shocking in the 80s - nobody mentions it today. George Michael's high profile gay encounter in the toilets? The allegations about Michael Jackson are still contested - not proved. 

Well, I'm trying to separate out listening to, and actively performing the music of potentially problematic artists. 

38 minutes ago, Jonesy said:

Jacko tends to 'get away' with lots because his music was so good. If he hadn't had been so popular, maybe just had a one hit wonder and spent 5 years in the limelight, then would people be so forgiving? Probably not.

I think this is right. 

31 minutes ago, cetera said:

Would it be OK to play a Rod Temperton song, that Michael Jackson did? Where is the line drawn?

 

Well, we did discuss 'Rock With You' and the lyrics, when considered in the context of the performer, could be taken in a pretty negative light. 

21 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

I would expect with a group of orchestra size, one or two objections to a particular piece would get outvoted, unless you've gone down the route of any objections and the song gets sidelined?

Nope, it was a sort of 'what do we all think' and then a majority vote. 

22 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

I really don't get the objection to Two Tribes. I'd be inclined to ask the objector to do one. Name a time when there wasn't a war going on somewhere.

I confess it had entirely passed me by too, but it was literally as the Ukraine conflict was happening, so it was very much front and centre in the news, so could have been seen as being a little insensitive. 

23 minutes ago, chris_b said:

I don't really care about the people who wrote or originally performed the music. IMO many were pretty flawed characters. I'm a song stands on it's own kinda guy. 

It's really difficult - sometimes I'm exactly like this, but then I start thinking about it, and swing completely back the other way! For example, I like a lot of Eric Clapton's stuff, but I find his personal views abhorrent - not just his evident racism (which is worse to me given he's benefitted entirely from a form of music derived from black music) but his later conspiracist stuff too. Same sort of thing with Morrissey/The Smiths. I guess day-to-day I listen to it but mutter "tosser" under my breath every now and again. 

I've been considering performing 'Tears From Heaven' - I have an arrangement which is a cross between the Unplugged and Jeff Berlin's versions, and I love the song, but whilst I'm happy to listen to it, should I be performing it?

20 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

If we start digging, really digging, into what is acceptable to us, we might find we subconsciously accept more than our conscious selves would like to admit.

Well, I'm not so much asking "is it acceptable to listen to X", rather is it acceptable to actively promote and perform that music? I think it's two separate considerations.

8 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Personally, I think that there's a lot of inner soul-searching merely to assuage some individual notion of 'conscience'. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'; each has (or has not...) a particular view on things. What were the morals of the person that made the chair you're sitting on..? What stuff does the bus driver in front of you get up to of an evening..? Is that creepy dentist really smiling, or enjoying some private fantasy Whilst you're under his influence..? W

Isn't the difference thought that the chair factory worker, bus driver and dentist aren't well-known public figures who stand to benefit from their art?

Quote

Why pick on the few pop idols that fell from their pedestals..? No, to me, it's irrelevant, and more time and energy spent studying and performing the excellent music they produced should outweigh any misgivings about their conduct (or that which has been portrayed in the Media, who have their own agenda.

Hmm, I think certainly in MJ's case it's a little more than 'fell from their pedestal', more like sky-dived off it at a million miles an hour, and it's rather more than misgivings. I think it's 'easier' in relation to the other examples I've given - irrespective of the objective morality, the social mores of the time meant it was more accepted to prey on young girls. 

Quote

The paintings of Adolf would have been praised at a certain point of recent History. For those painting, nothing has changed; they are the same. That he turned out to be something of a Bad Egg hasn't changed their intrinsic properties; Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder. An innocent, unaware of their provenance would base judgement on the article itself; I would hope to be able to do the same. (Not that I appreciate paintings at all, really, and the little I've seen of Adolf's work hasn't inspired me anyway...). Just my tuppence-worth. 

I think that's rather missing the point - we aren't innocents, unaware of context - which is what's driving the current debate. Thanks for the comments though!

Currently having a very interesting discussion with members of an orchestra I play in. We're lucky enough to have a very talented MD/arranger, who comes up with all manner of fantastic pieces.

We were discussing Quincy Jones yesterday, and today he asked whether it is appropriate to perform arrangements of songs by Michael Jackson that QJ produced and arranged.

There's been lots of discussion via Whatsapp since; the crux of it is can you and/or should you, separate the art from the artist?

For example, I think MJ's solo music is amazing; the fact we're even discussing it shows the material itself is far more worthy of consideration than something by, for example, Gary Glitter. 

One view is that the art stands alone from its creator - by listening to, and performing, the art itself, you are not condoning or supporting the acts of its creator. 

Conversely, the other is that the art is irrevocably linked with the acts of its creator and their legacy, and to perform (for example) MJ's songs, it is either ignoring, or giving tacit approval to, the problematic behaviour of the artist.

But once you start disappearing down the rabbit hole of dubious acts by prominent musicians there's all manner of things  - Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton being some examples -that might undermine their artistry. 

So where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Is there a difference between listening to the music and performing it? Is there a difference between covering it and doing a complete new arrangement? 

There's also the particular issue for us on to what extent should we take the views of the performers about the repertoire into account? For example, should one person be able to veto a tune because (for example) its lyrical content raises issues in their own life? One illustration is that we had an arrangement of 'Two Tribes' we were going to perform, but then the Ukraine conflict broke out, so we decided to shelve it for a while, but recently performed it with no objection from audience or performers (TBH it hadn't even occurred to me until someone raised it that there might be an issue!)

So I'm interested in views people might have on these issues. I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer (other than knee-jerk accusations of 'wokery') - what do you think?

No wonder this is on hold… it’s an astonishing bargain. I sold my XR18 for £600 recently they’re in such demand. 

I've seen good things about the ART Pro MPA II, which comes up fairly cheap 2nd hand: 

https://artproaudio.com/product/digital-mpa-ii-two-ch-mic-pre-w-a-d-conversion/

Or there's lots of standalone Focusrite channel strips etc which go pretty cheap, eg: https://reverb.com/uk/p/focusrite-voicemaster-pro-silver

This TLA looks like a decent price: https://www.facebook.com/commerce/listing/946976733326138

I guess it depends what your definition of 'cheap' is!

Well, you're paying him. If you don't like it, tell him, and if he won't do what you want, don't use him! 

Yikes, good luck!

Ah, I see! Sounds like a pain. I'd have thought without that Thomann one it might be time to bust out the soldering iron!

This suggests you can switch M and F connections around, but it's in the States: http://www.networksound.com/index.php/products/pbays/xlr

Er, and that particular one you have highlighted is available: 

https://www.thomann.de/gb/millenium_pb16_xlr_in_out.htm

Is it that you don't want to use Thomann?

What's the use case? I have an ART P16 which is 16 in/16out but if you need both I/O on the front panel, that configuration wouldn't be much good to you! 

The rack ears can be flipped so you can have either input or output on the front panel, if that's any use?

https://www.thomann.de/gb/art_p16_patchbay.htm

https://uk.farnell.com/art/p16/patchbay-16-channel-xlr-balanced

9 hours ago, Sparky Mark said:

Yes, a simple adapter is a good shout; but female not male:-

 

Sorry, yes - that’s what I meant!

Were I not the other end of the UK I’d be tempted by this! GLWTS.

3 hours ago, Hobbayne said:

Are you referring to the quarter inch jack on a short wire? Is that the speaker input jack? I noticed that, hence my question. 👍

I just used a male to male Jack adapter when I used a different head while I was waiting for my combo head to come back. Worked fine. 

I recently bought a double bass from BC, and it had been bought and sold on here at least once before that. 

The other option is try one of the shops - Bristol Violins might sell for you on a commission basis?

4 hours ago, Bunion said:

 

start digging around inside yourself 

LOL no! By 'further investigations' I meant checking all the switches are engaged/disengaged as appropriate, checking the gain levels to make sure I'm not underdriving the distortion section etc etc. 

I couldn't even figure out how to get the cover off!

23 hours ago, Bunion said:

take it back to the guy that just ‘fixed it’ 

Well, yes - what exactly did you think I was going to do?

Hmm, it may not entirely be back. I gigged it for the first time this evening and the OD circuit didn’t seem to work. It wasn’t necessary for the gig, but I will do somE further investigations...  

2 hours ago, KingBollock said:

Ibut I do think a big ol’ rack, full of different coloured gear and lots of knobs and glowing LEDs, is a wonderful sight to behold.

I

I really fancy (for no good reason!) having something like this in a rack behind me:

https://www.facebook.com/marketplace/item/5929558943747217

On 28/02/2023 at 20:21, PaulThePlug said:

Pedaltrain SST...

I would agree, except the one I had was really inaccurate and struggled to pick up bass notes. 
 

I’ve just got a Swiff mini tuner which I run from the tuner output of my preamp - works really well for just double checking intonation. 

So I am a moron. 

I recently acquired a BassBone and, realising that it needs a pretty hefty 15v 400mA supply, and my current pedalboard PSU wasn't going to cut it, bought a CIOKs SOL, which had enough outputs and the options to deal with all the pedals I have. 

Spent ages carefully setting it up on my pedalboard, checked the jumpers, double checked them, triple checked them, and once everything looked good, I plugged it all in. 

To be met with a cloud of acrid smoke coming from the BassBone. 

Sob. 

Of course, I knew that it needed a 15v 400mA supply. But I hadn't clocked it needed a CENTRE POSITIVE supply, not a CENTRE NEGATIVE one. So by plugging the latter in, I managed to burn out my new pedal. Or so I thought!

Once I'd cleared out the smoke from the room and triple checked I'd disconnected everything, I plugged in the correct Radial PSU and lo and behold, it still worked! 

Using the correct adaptor on the CIOKs also showed it was all working, so thankfully no damage done to the PSU (phew!). 

From my very urgent Googling straight afterwards, I gather that *some* pedal manufacturers use a sacrificial diode which stops the rest of the pedal getting knackered if you use the wrong PSU. 

So, even though I had a faceful of smoke, it seemed it was okay. 

Nevertheless, I got on to Radial to ask - they said they couldn't give me details of the innards, but to speak to Polar Audio, who are their UK distributor. Unfortunately Polar state that they don't do out of warranty repairs, and recommended two servcing companies - Surrey Amps and the dreaded (to me at least!) Real Electronics. Having had no luck in the past with RE, I did a search for amp repairs, and came across [a repairer, the details of whom I have now deleted owing to subsequent issues]

I dropped [person] a line, and he said he'd take a look; his hourly rate/diagnosis fee was much less than Surrey Amps so I gave it a shot. The service was exemplary - not only was I kept informed every step of the way, [person] even sent me a video of the pedal opened up and explaining the damage and what needed to be replaced. I gave the go-ahead, and he also sent me a video afterwards showing everything working. Finally, the repair was turned around and back to me in just over a week, for less than the cost of the SA diagnostic check. He also picked up an issue with a dodgy pot and replaced that too. 

I can't sing his praises enough. Whilst I could have kept on trying to use it, it wouldn't have had any protection and [person] pointed out the heat had damaged a small resistor too, so who knows if that could have caused other problems in the future. 

So, I have been saved by my own stupidity once again. [edit - repairer details removed due to subsequent issues]

(I haven't wired it all up again yet, but I will not be turning anything on until I'm absolutely sure I have the correct polarity this time!)

15 hours ago, BassmanPaul said:

Is there an update? Did you get the problem sorted?

 

Went back, checked with a tester - all fine, plugged in - no problems at all despite using all the same gear. Weird. Definitely no fridges or other heavy equipment nearby either. 

I mean...