SteveK

I don't know what happened... I posted once, it appeared twice, I delete one, both posts disappear. Maybe a mod can un hide one. [quote name='sellisnba' timestamp='1411405286' post='2559211'] It was my guitar tutor at the time. [/quote] He was wrong.

[quote name='GrammeFriday' timestamp='1410287510' post='2547890'] What, like Kiss? Did Kiss show exceptional ability on their instruments? Nope. Were they able to write stand-out songs? Can't think of a single song title. Did they have something interesting to say musically? Oh, please! [/quote] I know very little of Kiss, other than their make-up and lively shows and I guess that you're not a fan either ... but ok, maybe I should have added "presentation", but you do get my drift, right? IAC I did say "Generally speaking".

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1410278405' post='2547764'] Does it actually matter if no one can make a living out of creating music as long as the music is created in the first place? [/quote] Absolutely it matters! Do you think the classic albums, or any popular albums of the last 50 years would have been created if those musicians worked on their music in their spare time? The world would be a very different place, and most likely sadder, if, at least some musicians couldn't make a living from their chosen profession. BTW I'm not too sure that I understand your meaning of "democratised music scene". Music [b]is[/b], or [b]was[/b], as far as I'm concerned "democratised". Generally speaking, if you show/ed exceptional ability on your instrument, were able to write stand-out songs, or had something interesting to say musically, then you would get on further than someone who failed in all those... if you've got it, you'll get on! If you haven't, you won't! I certainly wouldn't call that undemocratic.

I think he's absolutely right! I consider myself lucky to have lived through an age where music meant [b]so much[/b] to [b]so many[/b] people.

[quote name='Doddy' timestamp='1407941410' post='2525552'] I don't see any downside to jamming, as long as everyone is listening and reacting to each other. The problem for me is when it becomes a stagnant one chord vamp or Blues which is purely for a guitar player to solo over. Sound familiar? The jams I enjoy most are the ones that start off with a form and start moving around as everyone reacts to one an other and takes it to another place. Playing the stock arrangement of Saw Her Standing There with different people isn't really a jam unless it naturally evolves into something else, as far as I'm concerned, because rarely there are any jam qualities-everyone is usually playing their part the same way that they always have. That's why I prefer a Jazz jam....they can open up into a more reactionary situation where you have to listen intently rather than playing stock parts. [/quote] "listening and reacting to each other" is something that can be learnt. I would fully expect a young musicians early experience in jamming to be a musically basic affair. There's a lot to be learnt from a "one chord vamp or Blues", providing all involved are enthusiastic and perhaps of a similar standard. Of course, the more interesting jams come with knowledge and experience, where a musician is able to steer a jam. Some of the most exciting music I've heard has been from a bunch of guys jamming.

Difficult to see what the downside could possibly be!

Jamming is an invaluable passtime for a serious musician, particularly in their early formative years. You can practice all you like in your bedroom, but getting together with other musicians and putting what you've learned to the test and hearing it in some kind of context is hugely beneficial - it focuses the mind. My guess is that many of those that say, "I don't do jamming" are actually inhibited and scared of making a fool of themselves. It can be great fun and, as I said, hugely beneficial.

[quote name='gadgie' timestamp='1407627014' post='2522510'] Who knows this might have been the first big gig the couple went to etc etc. However, what's the saying....two wrongs don't make it right. [/quote]First big gig or not, the only possible mitigation I can see is if the couple didn't speak English, having been asked a number of times to stop. It would appear from the reported eruption of cheers from the audience that the second "wrong" did indeed make it "right".

[quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1407614961' post='2522393'] Frankly, I'd have bent the punter over and shoved the phone roughly up his chocolate starfish but I suppose that would be a criminal offence rather than a civil matter and we can't have that, oh no. [color=#ffffff].[/color] [/quote]You da man! You buy a Peter Frampton ticket (or any artist), you gain access to HIS turf! And, if you don't abide by his rules (published Ts&Cs), you suffer the consequences! The guy was a little sh*t, but maybe the little sh*t has the law on his side... 'tis often so! Doesn't make him less of a sh*t though.

[quote name='gadgie' timestamp='1407591262' post='2522094'] I think the choice should be mine really, not the guy I'm 'paying' to watch, as to which I chose to have memories of. [/quote]Yeah, and the choice should be mine as to what Ts&Cs I adhere to (if any) when I apply for a credit card, mortgage, energy supplier, loan for a car, book loan from the library etc. They knew the score before they went through the gates! The "choice is, buy a ticket & adhere to Ts&Cs, or, don't buy a ticket.

I'm a big Macca fan, but the technique demonstrated by him in Coilte's YT clip is horrendous.

[quote]Anyway, the issue we have is that the only original band member is the singer and he can't remember who contributed what to any of the songs other than that he wrote the lyrics and came up with the melodies mostly.[/quote] Then, the singer is deemed to have written the songs, and should receive the credit. The only issue is that word "mostly", if by any chance the records were to sell in any significant number, then any ex members that felt that they had contributed to the writing process might have a legitimate claim. In band situations, records aren't usually kept regarding who wrote/contributed what - if it were ever to get to court, excluding any other possible evidence, it would be down to who was the more convincing in court. But, you would have to be selling records by the shed-full (in old terms ) to make it worthwhile anyone pursuing you through the courts.

Check the pickup height. I have a bass where a pickup height adjustment screw, over time, works loose, resulting in the string occasionally hitting the pickup when plucked, giving the "clunk" you describe.

Over the years we've had some of the best voices in the business in our band, and even though the timbre of their voices have changed from their early days (they're now in their late 50s and 60s), their ability to hit the high notes has remained. With the exception of one (he has a cast iron throat ), none have smoked!!

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1401945762' post='2468502'] We've discussed this earlier - there's too much natural variance from bass to bass. [/quote] [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1401894855' post='2467993'] It varies from tree to tree... weighing the bass itself is the only answer. [/quote] If a manufacturer made a series of basses using the same parts, wood type, hardware etc I would expect there to be very little noticeable difference in weight. Some older instruments where specs were frequently changed, weight would be harder to nail. To answer your original question: You're weren't asking too much of them. I'd phone them and ask again. What is the bass?

Check the manufacturers website - many include weight as part of the spec. Failing that, try Google. What bass is it?

[quote name='JamesBass' timestamp='1401016837' post='2459094'] I wouldn't agree with that at all, my ric sounds lovely with dead strings on or with fresh strings, [/quote] That's great! I've never owned a Ric and don't recall ever having played one, so it seems my experience could be a little limited As I said, IME the worst bass for old strings that I own is an Aria SB1000. The second worst was an Ibanez MC924 (the only bass that I've ever sold on) And probably the third worst (but just about passable) is an '85 Warwick Streamer.

[quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1400939007' post='2458354'] Don't you guys using the really, really old strings notice that the bass doesn't intonate properly anymore? I quite like the sound of old strings but after a while they just won't play in tune. [/quote] Shouldn't be anything that a minor adjustment wouldn't fix. [quote name='cloudburst' timestamp='1400943798' post='2458417'] This is waaay too much of a generalisation. :-) CB [/quote] You noticed?

I think a couple of posters may have misunderstood the gist of my thread. It's not so much about whether a player prefers a bright or a dull sound, more that some basses can sound good (if not better) with old and well played strings. IIME any reasonable bass will sound good with new strings, but only a P bass sounds good with new [b]and[/b] old strings. FWIW I generally change strings after 3, 4 or 5 shows as I feel the type of music I play warrants a regular change.

lemmywinks may be on to something with the active/passive thing. FYI The 'downright ugly' sounding bass (with old strings) I referred to in my post was an Aria SB1000 which is a semi active bass. Definitely benefits from a regular string change... as do all my basses, apart from the P bass. Actually, now I think about it, it may not be a passive/active thing after all, as the Aria sounds pig ugly even acoustically

Something that I have found over the 45 years or so of playing bass, but never seen discussed. We all know and love(?) the sound of a P bass fitted with strings that came from the ark, that lovely warm, Jamerson "thonk"! Indeed, I have my own '72 P bass with said strings, and even though I haven't gigged with it for about 36 years - it sounds fabulous. However, IMO no other bass sounds as good with old strings - all my other basses seem to benefit from a little more "zing" - in other words, a fairly regular change of strings. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I've had/got basses that sound great newly strung, but with older strings sound downright ugly - almost to the point of putting my teeth on edge. So,what basses would you say sound better with old strings? What sound better with newer strings? Or am I (as I've long suspected) losing my marbles?

Semantics eh!!?? Personally, I've found that a lighter gauge string produces a kind of "ferlupalup" tone - whereas, a heavier gauge will sound more "kerzzzzong" And don't forget... if you change the gauge of your strings - you'll need to re-setup your bass: truss, intonation etc. EDIT: Just to answer the question (kind of): I don't know what gauge Super Slinkies are as I've never used Ernie Ball Strings. But if I were in a "loud classic rock" outfit, I probably wouldn't go lighter than my current gauge of 40-100s

If you're serious about being a musician then It's impossible to overstate the importance of jamming. if you're just starting on your path as a musician though, then, it's probably best to confine your jamming to the rehearsal room for the time being. As a punter, jams can be fun, although my enjoyment of a jam is generally proportional to the musician's ability and creativity.

The real test for them is, how they are going to maintain interest for an entire album or live set with such a limited format.

I know nothing of Royal Blood, but having just checked out their Jools Holland appearance on iPlayer... I quite liked 'em! As for... [quote name='ubit' timestamp='1398254565' post='2432068'] [sup][size=5]How does he get that sound on the bass? [/size][/sup] [/quote] Most multi fx bass boards these days will have a similar preset installed, or at least have the capability to produce that kind of 'distorted unison bass/guitar' effect.