BigRedX

You've been rather coy about what sport(s) you have taken part in, which may make a difference to my opinion, but broadly if people are paying to see you perform as a musician or sports person then I think I would want paying. As a musician I've always been paid apart from those occasions where I have specifically agreed to provide my entertainment for free. The payment might not always have covered my costs directly, although when that happens the profit on the sales of merch normally make up the difference.

Most of the things that I have wanted to do with modular synths in the past can, these days, be replaced on any synth that allows MIDI CC assignment and tempo controlled synchronisation of the relevant parameters. Also IIRC Emerson had a roadie to repatch his modular Moog while he was slicking knives in the Hammond Organ.

Do people pay to watch you play sport? Does anyone other than the suppliers and manufacturers of the equipment and clothing that you use, make money out of your sporting activities?

These "complaints" mostly occurred in the 90s with a band that went through numerous line-ups some that included a drummer and others that didn't, and therefore I assumed that the people complaining were drummers angling for a job. Interestingly no-one ever complained about the keyboards being on the backing which applied at all the line-ups but one where we had to drop quite a few well-loved songs because the the synth player, despite being a considerably more accomplished player than me, was unable to recreate several of the keyboard parts to the standard that was required to make the songs sound decent. It's not been a problem with the current band because in the goth/post-punk genre some form of programmed or recorded backing is perfectly acceptable I come across more bands currently gigging with backing tracks than those who play completely live.

My band uses backing tracks. It enables us to get the whole band plus all our gear and merch in one car for travelling to gigs. It means we can fit in spaces on stage that more conventional bands wouldn't. We've picked up gigs at decent venues supporting much better known bands simply because of our smaller than usual stage footprint. Our backing replaces a drummer and a second synth player. While I know a couple of drummers with sufficient technical ability to replace the programmed drums neither are interested in playing our genre of music, and the synth parts are basically technical challenging but very repetitive or just the occasional sound effect/texture and are far better handled by a machine rather than a human being. Besides most bands I see using programmed or recorded backing have far more on the backing tracking than necessary. IMO even with backing tracks playing live is not about perfectly reproducing what is on the recording. I'm always paring down our backing to just what I think is essential for us to preform the song live. Most of the songs only have drums and very minimal second synth. I'm been in bands for almost 45 years now that have used some form of non-human element to play some of the parts. My standard response to anyone who complains about this is to ask them if they are interested in joining the band as a replacement for the tape/machine(s). Unsurprisingly I have yet to have someone take up my offer.

I thought he used 9, albeit in three switchable banks of three?

No DI output. That's strange. Both of the Originals ('83 and '85) I owned had DIs, although the '83 had the pre-amp replaced so the socket was no longer connected. Would make me wonder if it no longer had the filter pre-amp fitted which for me is one of the major attractions of this bass, along with the shape.

The rather confusing need to enable the "microphone" in order to be able to record external sources in Logic has been there a while, but it still caught me out when I upgraded from a 2010 MacPro to a Mac Studio. The Voice isolation mode appears to be a more recent development. BTW if you are on Facebook you should consider joining the excellent Apple Logic Pro Users Group.

All the bands I have seen in the last couple of years who use IEMs but whose guitarist(s) use amp-driven sustain and/or feedback as part of their sound have a SMALL amp somewhere on stage specifically for this purpose. It's placed so that it doesn't affect FoH but in a convenient location for its intended function. I've seen one placed with a 45° tilt-back at the front of the stage pointing directly at the guitarist.

IME semi-modular synths are always too much of a compromise. I had a Korg MS20 in the 80s which promised much more than it actually delivered. Many of the routings that modular users take for granted like being able to use the audio signal as a modulation source were unavailable, and TBH the patch pay while looking impressive could have been quite effectively replaced with a few switches. Similarly with the 2600. I was helping someone out on another forum with a patch routing and it was very quickly apparent that in order to do what they wanted another VCA and EG were required. And this was for a fairly simple patch that most non-modular synths could achieve on their own. Where The MS20 excelled was when you wanted to interface it with other equipment and when paired with the fully modular MS50, but IMO if you are going to do that you might as well build your own modular system from scratch, so you can concentrate on those modules that actually do what you want, and as long as you don't run out of Eurorack space, it's easy to add more VCAs/LFOs/EGs etc. as you find you need them. And if you don't find you need them you would have probably been able to make do with something non-modular.

But what about woodwind or brass transposing instruments? When they read a "C" do they think of it as "C" or whatever note their instrument actually makes?

I already do a creative job, graphic design, where much of the time I have little interest in what I am creating and my function is to produce what the client wants. If I really disagree with the creative direction that a project is going in, I will have one go at trying to persuade them my idea would be better, but ultimately the client is in charge and after that I'll take their money, shut up and do exactly as they ask. However when it comes to the music I want to play, I'm only interested in what I actually like. For me music is too important to be wasting time with songs I can't get 100% behind and I hope that the rest of the band feel the same. We are currently in the enviable position where we have more songs we really like than will fit in a typical 45 minute set.

Even the sound of the sticks hitting the pads on an electronic kit is surprisingly loud. My girlfriend can tell what song I'm practicing from the acoustic sound of the strings on a solid bass guitar.

The only printed tab I have come across was in a book I got in my early days of learning the guitar, back in the 70s. It included rhythm information and because it was aimed at slide guitar had the tuning for each piece as many of them were in open tunings. It also had traditional musical notation above the tab. Until I saw tab on the internet I assumed that all tab was done like this.

Low margins are in all sorts of retail sectors. I have a friend who used to work in sales for an Apple reseller. For something like an iPod the profit to the company wouldn't even cover the cost of his wages while he took the phone call to make the sale.

It seems to me, and again correct me if I'm wrong, but many readers are doing the thing that Tab is criticised for which is to go directly from a note position on the stave to a finger position on the fretboard without consciously identifying the note name. And I suppose that for complex pieces this is a requirement or you simply wouldn't be able to play them. And which is why for some people reading for one instrument is not a transferable skill to another even if it uses the same clef and transposition. Also makes sense for transposing instruments where the fingering is the same but the actual note produced is different. You're not actually reading the notes per se, you are reading a fingering position and blowing technique. As a composer I think the reliance on scale shapes and muscle memory limiting, and as far as possible if I find myself repeating note patterns from one composition to another (even if they are different keys) I will do my best to try something else and only revert to the original already used idea if I really can't come up with something different that is at least as good. Maybe that's why I'm not impressed with a lot of playing technique, because it often sounds like regurgitating the same thing over and over, particularly when we are looking at solos. Also I find a lot of the suggestions for music to use if you want to learn to read, very uninspiring, and as exercises that would put me off very quickly. On the other hand it seems that most of the people who want to learn to read need to do so in order to land paying gigs, which I suspect will involve performing some music that they have little interest in.

One final one from me. Track 9 on this page is by my third band. This time I'm playing synth. This is yet another song originally written and recorded by my first band and repurposed as an oriental sounding piece of synth-pop. IIRC it only uses black notes on the keyboard. This version was recorded at the end of 1983 using our newly acquired Yamaha DX7 (we had one of the first in the UK), in our practice space/recording studio located in the tiny cellar of one of the band members. Recorded on 4-track with numerous overdubs including one that had to be added live during the final mix. As well as the DX7 the other instruments on the track were Roland 808 drum machine, Korg MS20 and Roland SH101 synths. The Bright Lights cassette compilation was organised by myself and a friend who at the time was running the Square Dance Studio in Derby (which subsequently moved to Nottingham and became the Square Centre). It was supposed to be a representation of the current state of the Nottingham music scene like the Bomb Party cassette that my pervious band had been on. Unfortunately at the time we didn't have the same clout as BBC Radio Nottingham so a few of the bands we wanted to feature weren't interested, and some of the bands are included simply because they recorded a demo at Square Dance. I think 100 copies of the cassette were produced and sold through local record shops and at gigs. The cover was screen printed by me and the cassettes duplicated in real time by the studio. Another track recorded at the same as this had William Orbit interested in working with the band, but we weren't that impressed with his band at the time (Torch Song), and another member of the band had been involved in a similar situation with Dave Stewart of Eurythmics which had promised lots but ultimately delivered very little, and so we turned him down.

It really depends what you play and how important image is to you. If you favour 34" scale 4-string basses there are hundreds of options under £1500, especially if you also take second hand instruments into consideration, that you would need to have a very specific set of non-standard additional requirements not to be able to find something suitable at that price. If you play something less conventional it's not quite so clear cut. I currently play Bass VI and the only suitable instrument I have found costs just under £1500 new. There is nothing else available off the shelf that has a comparable specification for my needs, and to improve what I already have would involve having something custom-made by my favourite luthier and would cost four times as much.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the implication I get from people advocating being able to read (meaning sight read) is that you can play any score, so long as it is within your technical ability, on first look and not make any glaring errors. AFAICS the only way you can get up that standard of reading is by practicing using pieces that you don't already know. Otherwise the music is just a memory aid. The other thing about reading I never understand is those people who play multiple instruments, but can't read for all of them. How does that come about?

As someone who understands the various musical notation symbols but can't actually sight read, when you are practicing how do you know if you are doing it right? If you have even a passing familiarity with the music your are trying to read then it could be argued that you're not always actually reading but relying on previous knowledge of the piece along with some musical conventions that you have picked up along the way in regard to key etc. And when you have a new piece of music to practice your reading from how many times can you use this before much of it becomes playing from memory rather than playing from the score?

Tiny photos. What's up with that?

I really can't why anyone would want to use 2.4 when 5.8 is an option.

Unfortunately that's the price you pay for latency low enough to allow real-time wireless audio transmission.

And of course the sound will change again a soon as the venue fills up with audience.

IMO there are two important things: 1. You need to practice your reading on things you actually want to play. IME nothing puts people off learning quicker than having to do something they don't like. 2. You also need to practice your reading on tunes that you don't already know how to play and ideally are not familiar with. If you know or have some idea of what you are supposed to be playing you'll find that you are by-passing the actual reading. Also if I found that I need to be able to sight read I'd learn both the bass and treble clef.